What to do with Canada Post?

[Boges]

All this discussion over the benefits of Unions and Pensions blah blah blah ignores the remaining question. Should Canada Post keep current staffing levels even though the revenue just simply isn't there and there isn't anyone who needs daily delivery anymore, just to retain good paying jobs and keep an underfunded pension sustainable?

The reason public service jobs are usually good is because they don't have to justify their existence based on market conditions the same as private sector workers do.

[Wilber]

I love it how employees are always to blame for every misfortune that befalls business. If that's the case, why do CEO's make so freaking much. Couldn't ever be crappy management or a lousy business plan.

Except for home delivery by mail carriers which stopped for new customers back in the eighties, delivery to neighbourhood boxes is contracted out and is non union. Rural boxes have also been fazed out to a large degree. Farmers in our area now have to drive to boxes to pick up their mail.

Even though a lot of individuals don't use snail mail very much and probably don't need daily delivery (i'm one of them), it is essential for many businesses and let's face it, 63 cents to have a personal hand written letter delivered anywhere in the country is the deal of the century. Wouldn't be possible if junk mail wasn't subsidizing it so heavily.

[Boges]

Even though a lot of individuals don't use snail mail very much and probably don't need daily delivery (i'm one of them), it is essential for many businesses and let's face it, 63 cents to have a personal hand written letter delivered anywhere in the country is the deal of the century. Wouldn't be possible if junk mail wasn't subsidizing it so heavily.

It's unsustainable. Why should sending a piece of paper from PEI to Vancouver cost the same as sending a letter a 2-hour drive away?

If you choose to live in Butt-Bleep Nowhere then you should expect to pay more for things like mailing a piece of paper.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Boges

[Wilber]

utt

It's unsustainable. Why should sending a piece of paper from PEI to Vancouver cost the same as sending a letter a 2-hour drive away?

If you choose to live in Butt-Bleep Nowhere then you should expect to pay more for things like mailing a piece of paper.

I don't know about unsustainable but It could be more expensive to have a system that calculated a different postage for every destination, The high volume of mail travelling between major centers will also make unit costs lower than low volumes travelling much shorter distances. Butt Deep nowhere is where a lot of this country's wealth is generated which does a lot to support our standard of living.

[bleeding heart]

I love it how employees are always to blame for every misfortune that befalls business.

Yeah, I ain't buying it either.

[Boges]

It's not the employees fault the business model of their organization is outdated and unsustainable. BUT they shouldn't expect they should continue to have jobs just because it's not their fault.

[Wilber]

It's not the employees fault the business model of their organization is outdated and unsustainable. BUT they shouldn't expect they should continue to have jobs just because it's not their fault.

That is not a choice employees get in any business but you can't blame them for fighting for their jobs and working conditions.

[bleeding heart]

Hell, how any self-described capitalist could bemoan groups or individuals trying to negotiate a better jobs package is frankly bizarre.

It's one thing to say that they shouldn't get it; fine, that's an argument worth having. But it's quite another thing to excoriate them for trying.

"Rational self-interest" is supposed to be one of the pillars of the capitalist model.

[Boges]

Hell, how any self-described capitalist could bemoan groups or individuals trying to negotiate a better jobs package is frankly bizarre.

It's one thing to say that they shouldn't get it; fine, that's an argument worth having. But it's quite another thing to excoriate them for trying.

"Rational self-interest" is supposed to be one of the pillars of the capitalist model.

Because capitalistic principals have nothing to do with public servants wages. They seem to think the employer has unlimited funds considering they have the power to raise taxes. And so do arbitrators.

We see that public servants regularly get more money than people who do comparable jobs in the private sector.

[bleeding heart]

Because capitalistic principals have nothing to do with public servants wages. They seem to think the employer has unlimited funds considering they have the power to raise taxes. And so do arbitrators.

We see that public servants regularly get more money than people who do comparable jobs in the private sector.

Capitalist "principles," such as they are, are about trying to negotiate the best possible deal. When you negotiate for money in private enterprise, or try to sell your product for as much as you can get away with, or when a board determines the pay scale for a CEO...they don't sit around thinking about "principles." They don't worry about free market theory, or about what Adam Smith or the Austrian economists might think about it.

(Hell, our discussion elsewhere about the Big Three Canadian communications companies tell us quite explicitly that capitalists are among the least people concerned with such "principles." In fact, few people hate "free markets" and "competition" more than successful capitalists do.)

As I said, we can certainly argue about whether or not public servants should get this or that...and that is what is being debated.

But the idea that public sector workers are doing something wrong...well, that's not what capitalism is supposed to be about. We can't have it both ways.

Edited September 4, 2013 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

"Rational self-interest" is supposed to be one of the pillars of the capitalist model.

The loudest supporters of capitalism seem to be the least capitalist people there are. Adam Smith would be appalled with our current economy and the state of affairs today. He criticized rent seekers who made money without actually producing anything, ie, bankers. That kind of "rational self interest" was not what he had in mind, but capitalists today hold that up as the pinnacle of capitalist venture.

[TimG]

He criticized rent seekers who made money without actually producing anything, ie, bankers.

You are twisting the definition of rent seeking beyond recognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent-seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles.

Rent seekers are generally not bankers and are often people "producing" something like farmers or "green" energy producers. Edited September 4, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Whatever you say, Tim. You copy one example of rent-seeking from the Wiki and imply that this is the entirety of the practice. Unions are rent seekers because they make money off their membership without producing anything. They also limit who can belong to certain occupations, i.e., steelworkers, electricians, carpenters, through apprenticeship programs like guilds of the past. But banking is also rent seeking in that bankers make interest off the shell games they play with people's money. This was not part of "invisible hand" economy that Adam Smith imagined, yet this activity has the largest effect on the entire economy these days.

[Rue]

It's not the employees fault the business model of their organization is outdated and unsustainable. BUT they shouldn't expect they should continue to have jobs just because it's not their fault.

The management of Canada Post is as bad as it gets. The union at Canada Post is as bad as it gets. Put the two together and you have a toxic dysfunctional human relations conflict that is past any salvage point.

Mail has been replaced by email. Its as simple as that. There is zero reason for a government post office. Zero. Buh bye already. Canada Post and the Senate are 2 useless government organs that need to be cut out.

The Canada Post Office is a cancerous prostate. Pull it out. Makes no sense to keep it.

Me I agree with Angelina Jolie. You won't wait for the disease to kill you-you get rid of the organ in question.

[TimG]

But banking is also rent seeking in that bankers make interest off the shell games they play with people's money.

In some cases this is true. In others bankers provide valuable services which many people simply do not understand. Your statement implied that all bankers were rent seekers and that is simply wrong.

[Rue]

But the idea that public sector workers are doing something wrong...well, that's not what capitalism is supposed to be about. We can't have it both ways.

Lol. No one said public sector or civil servants were evil. The discussion is whether

certain government organs continue to have any purpose.

Using your argument we can never cut government waste because it assumes civil servants are

evil.

Get over it. I was a civil servant federally and provincially. I saw the amount of sheer waste from

redundant layers of managers trying to justify their existence with a never ending series of meetings

to discuss how to hold meetings about meetings to discuss the meetings for holding other meetings.

Government is about insanity. Its about redundancy in management and at the union level.

Having worked in government I vividly saw the front end workers that you and I deal with are overworked

and underpaid while the management layers are bloated with overpayment.

Yes I saw sob civil servants screwing the public, each other and wasting inordinate amounts of funding

because if they didn't spend the money in this year's budget they would face pay cuts in the next budget.

How many sob managers did I see bloating themselves on bonuses each year for the amount of front line grunts they could fire? Too many.

I am not pointing fingers at front line hard working public servants but I sure as hell am at civil service management and the civil service culture of waste and fantasy.

Elected officials and their civil servants waste money that do not belong to them. That is a fact and yah I think we should point our taxpaying fingers at them both.

Regards,

Mr. Zion Taxpayer

[Rue]

In some cases this is true. In others bankers provide valuable services which many people simply do not understand. Your statement implied that all bankers were rent seekers and that is simply wrong.

Did you say bankers provide valuable services? Hah.

Seriously, I agree with Jesus. No good comes from borrowing money or lending it. It causes inflation.

You ask me we should go back to building each other's barns when they burn down.

Mortgages. Loans. Bah.

Regards,

Sonny Drysdale

Edited September 4, 2013 by Rue

[cybercoma]

In some cases this is true. In others bankers provide valuable services which many people simply do not understand. Your statement implied that all bankers were rent seekers and that is simply wrong.

That is wrong, but it's also not what I meant to imply.

[Argus]

We see that public servants regularly get more money than people who do comparable jobs in the private sector.

Funny how no one complains that the CEOs doing the same work as high ranking public servants make $20 million a year but the high ranking public servants only make $200k.

You know, I bet if those CEOs weren't taking home such fat pay envelopes they'd be able to pay their workers more.

[Boges]

Funny how no one complains that the CEOs doing the same work as high ranking public servants make $20 million a year but the high ranking public servants only make $200k.

You know, I bet if those CEOs weren't taking home such fat pay envelopes they'd be able to pay their workers more.

In theory it's up to the shareholders to rein that in, but I too don't agree with that practice. Apples and Oranges though.

Why does the CEO of Hydro One deserve a multi-million dollar salary? Why does Metrolinx even exist? Let alone all the wealthy people that bureaucracy created. The public sector does it too.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Boges

[Argus]

All corporations will always want lower taxes, just like all people will. That has nothing to do with whether it makes sense to invest, and right now it does not. You make more money by investing capital than by sitting on it or pulling it out for exec salaries (because then it gets taxed at top marginal personal rates). So if it mades sense to invest it, they would. The only time it makes sense to sit on billions is when the alternative is worse. That time is now.

So you agree that hefty tax increases would probably encourage those people to start spending the money rather than just building it up into a tower of dollars, right?

There was not only oversight, but government bureaucracy directly telling banks how to behave which led up to the crisis. It started with the community reinvestment act under Clinton. This was based on people feeling bad that minorities got fewer loans.

Riiiight. It was all the fault of the Democrats! Of course, the fact bankers were playing the same games in Europe, and even in Iceland isn't explained by your "It was all Clinton's fault" but no doubt you'll come up with some other excuse as to why we should stop regulating Wall Street and let them do whatever they want. After all, you KNOW that's the way to go. FOX news keeps telling you so.

The only nordic nation running a surplus is Norway, because they are a petro-state. They are on the list of nations running surplus, which is nearly without exception all petro-states.

I don't know if you're noticed, but WE are a petro state, and I don't see any surpluses here. For that matter, the US is a petro state too. And even the other nordic states don't have anything like our debt.

From a labor point of view they are not. But ultimately lower employment means fewer people buying the stuff you make or the services you provide, which means lower profits.

So does outsourcing all the good jobs, but that hasn't stopped corporate Canada and corporate America from doing that too. The people building cars in the US now can't afford to buy them, at least, not any but the cheap compacts. But that ultimately doesn't matter either. CEO's only care about the immediate picture. They don't care about the future. They all have immense golden parachutes, after all.

For example, the unimpressive and unsuccesful CEO of Blackberry Thorston Heins would be paid $22 million dollars if fired. If he can manage to sell the company first, no matter whether that's a good thing or not, he gets $55 million if fired thereafter. And he's just the CEO of a smallish Canadian company. The CEOs of the big American firms have much sweeter deals.

[cybercoma]

So does outsourcing all the good jobs, but that hasn't stopped corporate Canada and corporate America from doing that too. The people building cars in the US now can't afford to buy them, at least, not any but the cheap compacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism

[hitops]

So you agree that hefty tax increases would probably encourage those people to start spending the money rather than just building it up into a tower of dollars, right?

No why would it? The reason to use the tower of money is to produce growth or a return, not just for the sake of using it.

Riiiight. It was all the fault of the Democrats! Of course, the fact bankers were playing the same games in Europe, and even in Iceland isn't explained by your "It was all Clinton's fault" but no doubt you'll come up with some other excuse as to why we should stop regulating Wall Street and let them do whatever they want. After all, you KNOW that's the way to go. FOX news keeps telling you so.

Don't be one of those guys who needs to pigeon hole people because you can't deal with the argument. I don't know what's on fox nor do I care. I don't have a TV. Sounds like you don't know what the community reinvestment act is. You should read about it and become informed. It directly ordered banks, by law, to lend to high-risk borrowers. Then gov said don't worry we'll back you. And they did, and you have the results.

I don't know if you're noticed, but WE are a petro state, and I don't see any surpluses here. For that matter, the US is a petro state too. And even the other nordic states don't have anything like our debt.

Umm no. Norway's economy is nearly 60% petro, similar in scope to middle eastern exporters. The US is not even a net exporter. Here in Canada the housing sector alone is larger is than energy, mining and manufacturing combined.

So does outsourcing all the good jobs, but that hasn't stopped corporate Canada and corporate America from doing that too. The people building cars in the US now can't afford to buy them, at least, not any but the cheap compacts. But that ultimately doesn't matter either. CEO's only care about the immediate picture. They don't care about the future. They all have immense golden parachutes, after all

For example, the unimpressive and unsuccesful CEO of Blackberry Thorston Heins would be paid $22 million dollars if fired. If he can manage to sell the company first, no matter whether that's a good thing or not, he gets $55 million if fired thereafter. And he's just the CEO of a smallish Canadian company. The CEOs of the big American firms have much sweeter deals.

If CEO's have terrible long-term strategies, the boards and shareholders of those companies can dump them since they will ultimately hurt those shareholders more than anybody else.

You average CEO has far less that that. But you're missed the point, it's the small companies that get killed by the instability and complicated tax and regulatory environment, far more than the big ones. Big guys always get an advantage over small businesses when gov makes new laws or tries to extract more money.

Edited September 5, 2013 by hitops

[jbg]

I'm sure not everyone does have access to a computer. But you still have access to a computer with the internet at public libraries etc. I'm hearing people starting to say that internet is a universal human right.

Still doesn't justify daily mail delivery.

My parents have a computer at their home. My mother is 80 and stepfather is 94, and both have zero capacity to use it. It is a lovely paperweight.

[bjre]

This is not a issue for Canada Post alone. RIM has problem, previously, Notel bankrupt, and Zellers, Now Sears has problem, ATI become part of AMD.

When all Canadian business has problem, it shows that the system has problem. It is not sustainable.

The reason is there are too many blood suckers, who do little work and take huge amount of money that other business work hard to create. When the real value creater has to give blood to those suckers, they lost compete ability compare to the counterpart of other countries.

The main blood sucker is the private banks, The government borrow money from private banks and use %9 of the our tax dollars to pay the interest each year.

Government should not do that, They should borrow money from Bank Of Canada if need. No matter Bank Of Canada charge interest or not, it is belongs to all the people in Canada.

And the morgage companies are the blood suckers too, they take money as interest from amost every family of this country, a large part of the values that work class created has been taken away in this way, that makes the cost of all the business higher.

There are many other blood suckers that takes huge amount of tax money and create problems more than they solved, such as Children's Aid Society, etc.