• Kelowna's Homepage
  • Vernon's Homepage

Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

B.C. topics.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Triple 6, Jo, ferri

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby Gone_Fishin » Jul 16th, 2012, 4:23 pm

Smurf wrote:You gave every indication you support the sale and that you would agree if they cut employee wages. You did say there should be a sound business proposal.

There's the rub. A sound business proposal may not include inflated union wages. That's how we should be evaluating Crown operations, as to whether or not a sound business proposal can be made based on the numbers. But we don't - we pay stock boys at the beer shop wages that don't support a sound business model. The return on notional equity just isn't there for the amount of skin the employer (the taxpayer, in this instance) has in the game.
User avatar
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2454
Likes: 756 posts
Liked in: 387 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby Homeownertoo » Jul 16th, 2012, 4:55 pm

Smurf wrote:I was just thinking on paper that maybe this will end up being looked at like the BC Rail deal and I believe other dealings that the Auditor General has had to take to court to get any information. It's not like litigation hasn't happened before and has real possibilities of going further if someone keeps on top of it. I believe a number of the same names are involved so the two could end up tied together.

Until we get beyond what you believe, as opposed to what you know, it's not a matter for litigation.
I was just commenting on your own statement:

"I'm not surprised a distiller's organization or a brewer would prefer to work with a monopoly. Why should they favor the consumer? They are in business to make a profit and if they can collude with government to keep prices high, why wouldn't they."

You really do have trouble with either logic or reading comprehension, don't you. How do make the vast leap from an acknowledgement that since business operates to make a profit rather than for the public good, those profits should go to the public. Have you truly forgotten that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
How can it be good for that money to suddenly leave the province as profit for an international company when it's previously circulated around our province or economy in one way or another. Including income taxes, pensions, mortgage payments, food and all the other things a family spends their money on.


Something must be attracting Exel/DHL and I am sure it is profits. Why does it not make sense to keep those profits which are currently ours here, for the taxpayers of BC.

If your understanding of capitalism is so bereft, I am afraid you are beyond my powers of persuasion. See final comment.

You gave every indication you support the sale

Sorry, I did nothing of the sort. I clearly stated that I wanted to see the numbers Exel gave the government, and never indicated support for a private monopoly, regardless of how you read it.
Your right I ran with it.

And you're still running.
I do believe from your writing you already believe it is a good deal just because it puts it in private hands.

What I said, rather than what you wished I had said, was that liquor distribution is not a natural monopoly that might justify public ownership/operation, and therefore it belongs in the private sector. Not at all what you claim I said. Please read more carefully in future.
If you read your posts I believe more than once you insinuated just because it is your idea or mine does not make it right or wrong.

Very true. But I am right.
I believe there are times when publicly owned business does work and this one is.

Too bad you haven't made that case, beyond an emotional appeal to keeping the profits in BC while ignoring the unintended consequences that ensue. I, on the other hand, have made a case for liquor distribution not being a government operation. Mine is based on sound economics rather than beggar-thy-neighbour economics that leaves everyone poorer.
“Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” -- Leftist icon Herbert Marcuse
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs.” -- Hillary Clinton, 25/10/2014
User avatar
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3875
Likes: 54 posts
Liked in: 34 posts
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby Smurf » Jul 17th, 2012, 4:42 am

Homeownertoo wrote:

Very true. But I am right.

Your attitude proves any further conversation is useless. Schoolground talk "I'm right and you're wrong nana nana na na". I actually thought you were above that. However I have met a number of actually very smart engineers whose booklearning proved wrong in the real world. Again one size fits all even in economics does not always work.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Posts: 6723
Likes: 4485 posts
Liked in: 1720 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby my5cents » Jul 18th, 2012, 8:37 am

I think the LCB Warehousing sell off is pretty simple.

The government didn't identify that there was an economic benefit to selling. The LCB Warehousing is part of a system that apparently is working and providing good paying jobs to British Columbians, and a sizeable profit to British Columbia.

The government is approached by one company wanting to purchase the operation. Initially the government tells that company that they are not interested.

Fast forward to lobbying, and private conversations at quasi social gatherings and all of a sudden the government is asking for bids to sell this asset.

The hard part to understand is why some British Columbians who, without all the information (and none of us have been provided with a cost benefit analysis of this proposed sale) think this proposed sale is a great idea. If there was such a clear reason to sell off this asset and cut jobs wouldn't the government be shouting it from the roof tops ??

Those supporting the government's sale of this asset, site :
    - Private industry always runs things better
    - Cut the cost of warehousing (how do they know it will cut the cost ?????)
    - Get rid of "inflated union wage jobs"

I would think the issues would be :
    - Is the warehousing portion of the LDB costing or making money ?
    - What would the effect of selling the warehousing portion of the LDB be to the wholesale cost of liquor at retail outlets (private and government) ?
    - What would the impact be of losing the "inflated union wage jobs" (ie, less taxes received, less disposable income,) ?
    - If this arm of the LDB is losing money, why would a private company be hounding the government to sell it ?

Alberta discovered that the privatization of the warehousing of their LDB resulted in a 50% cut in wages for warehouse employees and a higher wholesale cost to the retail outlets.

What is wrong with paying a good living wage to someone ? Is this a race to see how much we can screw up our economy ? If cutting wages isn’t going to reduce the cost of the product, why do it ??

Those who are opposed to good paying government jobs,,,, what's your real problem ? From what I hear on these forums you would be happy if (for example) all government liquor store employees' wages were cut to that of the private liquor stores. Is it jealousy. The private stores charge the same or more for their product, they don't have the selection, they don't, in most cases have the classy modern stores, they pay their employees poorly and the profit they make goes in the pockets of a few individuals.

This is the same government who at one point was going to sell off the Coquihalla and let private industry set the tolls (that were expected to rise) then a few years later did a 360 and took the tolls off completely at a cost of $60 million a year,,,, and the reason was ?????? (after renovating the toll booths, I understand)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2398
Likes: 310 posts
Liked in: 404 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby steven lloyd » Sep 20th, 2012, 4:01 pm

The Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) is a profitable distribution and retail entity that we all own. Over the last five years the LDB has produced $4.3 billion in provincial income. The provincial government is rushing to sell off public liquor distribution. There is less than a month before the BC Liberals announce which private company will take over our public liquor distribution system. Once this significant public revenue stream is gone it is gone forever. If you would like to add your voice to more than 50,000 other BCers who oppose this sell off of yet another revenue producing public asset you can sign this on-line petition:

https://www.change.org/petitions/don-t- ... ion-of-ldb

(not that the Liberals or BC Christy Party care what any of you think)
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19170
Likes: 1407 posts
Liked in: 3279 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby Logitack » Sep 28th, 2012, 10:27 am

BCGEU and BC Gov have a tentative agreement #yyj #bcpoli #cfax

Premier Christy Clark told the UBCM convention in Victoria that a tentative deal had been reached. At the same time the union, which represents over 25,000 government workers, confirmed the news in an emailed statement.

Few details about the deal are public, however the BCGEU did say “as part of the agreement, the sale of Liquor Distribution Branch warehouses and the NRFP for privatization were cancelled. Both sides agree the move was needed to get the deal done.”

The agreement needs to be ratified by members. The union is recommending it be accepted.

-Ryan Price http://www.facebook.com/cfax1070/posts/532192903460719

this should be interesting to get more details on the cancellation of the LDB sale...if i am reading that right...
User avatar
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14212
Likes: 456 posts
Liked in: 663 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2009, 6:13 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby steven lloyd » Sep 28th, 2012, 4:27 pm

The BCGEU has reached a tentative agreement with the B.C. government that sees gains for more than 25,000 members who work in direct government service province-wide.

“We knew this round of bargaining would be tough and it was,” said BCGEU president Darryl Walker. “Our members gave us a mandate and we fought hard during nine months to achieve this deal. We struck four times and implemented an overtime ban to back our proposals. We’re pleased we’ve been able to work productively with the government in recent days to reach this tentative agreement.”The BCGEU bargaining committee is recommending members accept the agreement.

As part of the agreement, the sale of Liquor Distribution Branch warehouses and the NRFP for privatization were cancelled. Both sides agree the move was needed to get the deal done.

As a result of this deal, the overtime ban implemented on Monday, September 17, 2012 is cancelled effective immediately.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19170
Likes: 1407 posts
Liked in: 3279 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby steven lloyd » Sep 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

BCGEU reaches tentative contract with B.C. government
CBC News

B.C. Premier Christy Clark surprised delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention convention Friday with several major election-style announcements during her speech, including a contract deal with the province's biggest public employees' union.

Clark announced a tentative contract with the B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union in her address to the 1,500 delegates gathered in Victoria for the annual UBCM meeting.

After Clark's speech, BCGEU president Darryl Walker confirmed the tentative deal gives the 26,000 government workers a four-per-cent wage increase over two years.

The wage increase was funded from savings found within existing budgets, said a statement issued by the Ministry of Finance during Clark's speech.

As part of the agreement, the statement said the government's proposal to privatize liquor distribution had been cancelled.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19170
Likes: 1407 posts
Liked in: 3279 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

Postby NAB » Nov 6th, 2012, 9:13 am

...and now inked.. who was the cabinet minister and back room gang pushing for that privatization by the way?

""British Columbia's 25,000 government workers have voted 64 per cent in favour of a new contract that includes a four-percent wage increase over two years and other gains.

The agreement, which followed a marathon bargaining session that ended Sept. 27, expires on March 31, 2014.

The agreement also includes job security, increased vehicle and meal allowance, and the cancellation of plans to privatize liquor distribution throughout the province.""
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Likes: 38 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 12:33 pm


Return to Regional

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest