Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

[flamingfingers]

"FAIRNESS MONITOR?"

Palmer: Government keeps a tight rein on fairness monitors
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun June 29, 2012

VICTORIA - The New Democrats recently fired off a letter to the government-appointed overseer of liquor privatization in an effort to discover if he shared any of the growing concerns about the controversial proposal.

“Since the government announced its misguided intention to privatize the liquor distribution branch there have been a number of issues raised about the integrity process,” wrote Shane Simpson, MLA for Vancouver-Hastings and his party’s critic on liquor distribution.

The letter was addressed to George Macauley, the private consultant hired by the B.C. Liberals as a “fairness monitor” and cited by them on a regular basis as proof that the process will be fair and open.

Simpson, who released a copy of the June 22 letter to the media this week, detailed a range of concerns over a privatization that was launched as a last-minute fundraising notion in this year’s provincial budget.

Government failure to release a business case for selling liquor distribution to private operators, strongly suggesting that there isn’t one. Meagre advance consultation with industry representatives, giving rise to fears that a private operator will hike prices for liquor distribution.

Plus, the news that prompted the timing of the letter, the sudden departure of LDB boss Jay Chambers (he’s taken another government job with the motor vehicle branch) just as the bidding process was reaching a crucial stage.

“Fairness requires that government engage members of the effective industry and the public in major decisions like the sale of important, revenue-generating public assets,” wrote Simpson. “It also requires that we bring the maximum amount of knowledge and expertise to the table in negotiations.”

Presuming the monitor might share this view of fairness, the Opposition MLA urged Macauley “to recommend the government postpone the process to allow for meaningful consultation and to permit Mr. Chambers’ replacement to get up to speed.”

The rebuff was not long in coming. “I understand the nature of the concerns that you have expressed in your letter, and appreciate your input,” replied Macauley, via a letter dated June 25.

“However,” he continued, “my role as fairness monitor is limited to the terms of my engagement.”

Those being that he review the documentation for the process — the technical name is a negotiated request for proposals or NRFP — that invites private operators to submit bids to take over liquor distribution.

Then, armed with an understanding of the objectives, the monitor is expected to attend meetings with proponents, visit the sites if necessary, and otherwise keep an eye on the process. If necessary, he is expected to provide advice related to fairness as the bids are evaluated and winnowed to a single winner, presuming there is one.

Then and only then he is directed to “prepare a written fairness summary based on observations made during the delivery of the procurement process.” Until then, he’ll do or say nothing publicly, including with respect to the concerns raised by Simpson.

“My observations of and comments on activities of the participants within the process and fairness within the process as developed will be contained in the written fairness summary report that I will provide to the province at the conclusion of the procurement process,” wrote Macauley. “To the extent that I have any concerns about fairness within the NRFP process, these concerns will be reflected in my written fairness summary.”

Simpson released the letter Friday, which as it happened, is also when the bidding closed.

Though disappointed, he didn’t dispute Macauley’s reading of the government-dictated terms of reference. He did note that if the monitor’s sense of fairness were to be offended, the public won’t know until the distribution branch has gone to the highest bidder, and then only if the government chooses to make the findings public. Not much of a watchdog, in other words.

Moreover, the government can be somewhat flexible about the timing of its fairness reports, as I discovered with the sale of BC Rail back in 2003.

That process also had a fairness adviser, whose report was slated to be released once the deal was done.

Then, a week before the sale to CN Rail was announced, Canadian Pacific pulled out of the bidding, complaining, via a confidential letter to then-premier Gordon Campbell’s office, about a “breach of fairness” and a “violation of intent,” that appeared to favour rival CN.

When the CP letter was leaked to The Vancouver Sun, the premier’s office responded by releasing a copy of an “interim report” from the fairness adviser, claiming that the process had been “fair and impartial.”

Convenient, especially considering that according to the date on the report, the fairness adviser had reached that interim verdict two days before the letter conveying CP’s concerns was delivered to the premier’s office.

None of which says that fairness monitors don’t do their best within their terms of reference. But as Simpson discovered this week, the government tends to frame those terms as narrowly as possible and in a way that ensures the public will be told as little as possible until the deal is done.

[email protected]

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Pa ... z1zHqQZdLq

[logicalview]

B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says the government will not budge on wage increases following an announcement Friday that liquor store employees will go on strike Monday.

"Let me be clear on one thing. There are no additional dollars going to be put in by government ... We are not going deeper into debt to fund increases that taxpayers cannot afford," said Falcon.

Simple solution, fire them all and privatize the whole operation.

[NAB]

Yup. Carried on long enough, and eventually to its logical conclusion, we won't even need "government" any more. (Think of the taxes we will all save LOL). Just turn the private sector loose to do what they wish and live as they wish. But hey, we are already well along that path aren't we ;-)

Nab

[logicalview]

Won't it be nice when the government of the day bashers don't have a government to bash!

[Looney]

Yep, I can't wait for all the private police forces around the country. Better hope your brother is sheriff or that he is at least a close friend. But hey at least I will be able to carry a gun, drive drunk, and speed when ever I want with no laws. Yahooooo.


Edit to Add:

Hey drugs won't be illegal. Oop's nothing will be illegal.

[flamingfingers]

Bob is on the job:

Saturday, June 30, 2012
"Stee-rike" 1 at Liquor Distribution Branch
The British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union is rightfully on the warpath during its 70th anniversary year.

After six months of negotiations with the B.C. government, the gloves are coming off and it could be a long, hot summer. The BCGEU wants a 3.5% increase for its 29,000 members across government for the first year of a new contract and a cost of living increase in the second. The government has offered only 3.5% over two years and Finance minister Kevin Falcon has drawn a line in the sand.

"The world economy is actually getting worse, it's not getting better," Falcon told CKNW on June 29. "I think the unionized workers really need to understand that our offer will come off the table, and I'd sure like to see them return to the table before that offer's removed for good. It is not going to get any better."

The first salvo fired by the BCGEU is to strike at three important Liquor Distribution Branch locations. The Vancouver headquarters, which includes offices, the main warehouse and the flagship store, will be behind pickets from 11:30 p.m. July 2 to 11:30 p.m. July 3. Similar strikes are scheduled for July 3 at the LDB's Kamloops warehouse (5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.) and Victoria wholesale customer centre (6 a.m. to 5 p.m.). The disruptions are bound to cause a hiccup in the supply chain and the government will feel a pinch. But it will not be anything like the 1970s and 1980s when a summertime strike at government liquor stores in B.C. created chaos.

This is an intriguing strategic move. LDB is one of the province's biggest, most profitable retailers and the 3,500 BCGEU members who work in it are important collectors of provincial tax revenue. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, LDB delivered an $890.4 million profit to government on $2.82 billion gross sales.

The government is amid a controversial program to privatize LDB's warehousing and distribution -- without a business plan and without formal industry consultation but with evidence that such a move is being done primarily to benefit BC Liberal party insiders. Evidence is contained in Exel Logistics' "Project Last Spike" internal memo from Oct. 6, 2009 that even suggests the BCGEU was an ally in its privatization push.

BCGEU is now publicly opposing the privatization, after signing a March 21 memorandum of agreement for post-privatization job protection and early retirements. The June 29 news release announcing the three strikes said another reason to picket the LDB work sites is "to back our proposal for Sunday liquor store openings province-wide to generate more than $100 million in annual revenue."

That's odd. BCGEU president Darryl Walker told me in a May 3 interview that the proposal was dead. Killed, in fact, by the government in negotiations leading to the March 21 agreement. The Sunday openings proposal was considered a deal breaker by the government, Walker said. Below is an excerpt from my interview with Walker.

Mackin: If BCGEU is opposed to the privatization of this asset, then why would it have made the deal, made the memorandum of agreement to get the job protection for the workers, for the members? Wouldn't it be better if the BCGEU went out on principle and said 'no, we're not going to agree to this, we're going to, on principle, oppose this entirely' and rip up the MOA?

Walker: "Part of the reason that we sat down with the government and put the MOA together is to protect our members, and that is our primary responsibility as you probably know under our certificates with the Labour Relations Board. We're held highly accountable for the rights of our members and when you see an opportunity to protect the members, the first piece is to get that done. That's why we sat down and worked with the government.

"You might also know that of course we had a proposal on the table to open stores on Sundays, thereby increasing revenues by, well, as much as $120 million to $140 million to $150 million annually. We were told by the employer that if we didn't take that off the table we would be unable to provide or get the protection in the MOA for our members. So we were in a position first off to protect our members and that's what we knew we needed to do.

"Once that was done and we had those in place we then understood we were able to do the second piece, which is to oppose this on principle. Principle is one thing, quite frankly British Columbia needs revenues now and we need to be able to say to B.C. that we can show the government methods of providing and enhancing those revenues. We needed to be able to do that but we needed to be able to protect our members first. That was our primary responsibility. We saw it as a bit of a two-step, and we realized that one had to go first if we were to protect our members."

There may be reasons to limit Sunday openings. Chief medical officer Dr. Perry Kendall reported in 2008 that a government monopoly on the retail of alcohol and restrictions on hours and days of sale are among the 10 "best practices policies for managing the health and social harms of alcohol." Kendall told me he government did not consult him on the potential health or social implications of the privatization of LDB warehousing and distribution.

There are also 1,400 liquor retail outlets in B.C., of which only 197 are government-owned. The majority are licensee retail stores (672) and rural agency stores (221) owned and operated privately by companies that were granted Sunday opening privileges by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch and their host municipalities. The licensee retail stores especially would obviously not be amused if they had to suddenly compete with the government for customers.

There is no evidence, however, that government has recently studied any of the commercial or health implications of anything to do with the wildly lucrative and socially risky business of booze. If it has any, the government doesn't want to share any business plans or cost-benefit analyses with you or me.

I have made numerous requests to interview liquor minister Rich Coleman. He has not sat down for an interview with me.

http://2010goldrush.blogspot.ca/

[logicalview]

The greedy union workers at the Liquor Stores won't be striking because the consumer can head over to the private store in that situation.

[Gone_Fishin]

I wonder where the greedy union workers will buy their beer if they go on strike? Hmm, I bet they would settle quickly once Walker's union beer gut starts to get thirsty!

[my5cents]

The greedy union workers at the Liquor Stores won't be striking because the consumer can head over to the private store in that situation.

All the greedy union workers should get minimum wage. All they do is stock shelves and work automated registers.

Cut their wages !,,, Privatize, that'd even be better.

We need a province of minimum wage workers. That's what we need.

They are all greedy.

But wait,,, who will pay the taxes we need to fund all the programs ? Minimum wage earners don't pay hardly any taxes....

Who will buy the houses, the cars,, go out for dinner ? Support the economy.

Hmmm

[flamingfingers]

All the greedy union workers should get minimum wage. All they do is stock shelves and work automated registers.

Cut their wages !,,, Privatize, that'd even be better.

We need a province of minimum wage workers. That's what we need.

They are all greedy.

But wait,,, who will pay the taxes we need to fund all the programs ? Minimum wage earners don't pay hardly any taxes....

Who will buy the houses, the cars,, go out for dinner ? Support the economy.

Hmmm

Money in the hands of many drives the engine of the economy.

[LoneWolf_53]

Who will buy the houses, the cars,, go out for dinner ? Support the economy.

Hmmm

So you don't believe that minimum wage earners who put every cent they make back into the economy are not supporting it?

Interesting viewpoint and goes far in demonstrating how narrow minded the pro union sector is.

I'm of the mind that a lot of lesser earners do as much or more to support local economy than the stinking rich who pay others to devise ways of avoiding the paying of their fair share of taxes.

They're also helping to keep a business alive that also has to pay taxes unless I'm mistaken.

Circumstances also exclude them from taking fancy vacations, where income is spent elsewhere in the tropics, having to instead make do with what's offered here at home.

Yep you've really thought it out well..................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[danmartin]

[ Cut their wages !,,, Privatize, that'd even be better.

We need a province of minimum wage workers. That's what we need.

They are all greedy.

But wait,,, who will pay the taxes we need to fund all the programs ? Minimum wage earners don't pay hardly any taxes....

Who will buy the houses, the cars,, go out for dinner ? Support the economy.

Hmmm[/quote]

[danmartin]

[So you don't believe that minimum wage earners who put every cent they make back into the economy are not supporting it?

Interesting viewpoint and goes far in demonstrating how narrow minded the pro union sector is.

I'm of the mind that a lot of lesser earners do as much or more to support local economy than the stinking rich who pay others to devise ways of avoiding the paying of their fair share of taxes.

They're also helping to keep a business alive that also has to pay taxes unless I'm mistaken.

Circumstances also exclude them from taking fancy vacations, where income is spent elsewhere in the tropics, having to instead make do with what's offered here at home.

Yep you've really thought it out well..................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.[/quote][/color][/color]

I'm not quite understanding your post???? Are you suggesting that that union workers are the "stinking rich"! A union worker with a little more money than someone on minimum wage will maybe be able to buy a car or in time a home if he is careful with his or her earnings. They will be putting it all back into the economy as will some one on minimum wage. The person on minimum wage will be spending all his money on just getting by and won't be buying any extras from the retail outlets or going out for dinner etc. ..."helping to keep a business alive"!!! Privatize and reduce wages and put the profits into one or two peoples pockets and and then someone will be taking "fancy vacations, where income is spent elsewhere in the tropics"

[my5cents]

I'm not quite understanding your post???? Are you suggesting that that union workers are the "stinking rich"! A union worker with a little more money than someone on minimum wage will maybe be able to buy a car or in time a home if he is careful with his or her earnings. They will be putting it all back into the economy as will some one on minimum wage. The person on minimum wage will be spending all his money on just getting by and won't be buying any extras from the retail outlets or going out for dinner etc. ..."helping to keep a business alive"!!! Privatize and reduce wages and put the profits into one or two peoples pockets and and then someone will be taking "fancy vacations, where income is spent elsewhere in the tropics"

I was composing as your's came through, almost word for word.

[Homeownertoo]

Weird, the things some people believe. Such as, paying people more than they are worth makes the economy stronger. I'm afraid the economy doesn't work that way. Contrary to popular delusions expressed in this forum, paying public employees more than they are worth only debilitates the economy, regardless of how much shopping they do or fancy dinners they eat out.

If liquor board employees are overpaid, privatization and the consequent lower salaries will benefit the economy. There is nothing controversial about that statement except in the mind of economic illiterates.