Alberta Politics Thread

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The unethical part is when it is done in a manner where people will have to suffer hardship in exchange for the financial gains of a few.

That is not what you wrote. Ah so it's the ends that justify the means then. As long as they act in a manner to push towards what you like, then it is ethical.

Unions don't lobby for the sake of the 4 million people in the province. They lobby for themselves and their members. By your logic, it is unethical that they keep their (unsustainable?) pensions nor ever ask for a raise as it places hardship on the rest of the much larger tax payer base that must pay for it. It is clearly to the financial detriment of the greater number of people in Alberta and to the benefit of just the smaller number people in the union.

You seem to have a dire hatred of corporations that doesn't seem grounded in logic or reality.

Actions are not ethical merely by the fact that it might (in your opinion) result in a benefit for the larger numbers or just because you like them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

That is not what you wrote. Ah so it's the ends that justify the means then. As long as they act in a manner to push towards what you like, then it is ethical.

Unions don't lobby for the sake of the 4 million people in the province. They lobby for themselves and their members. By your logic, it is unethical that they keep their (unsustainable?) pensions nor ever ask for a raise as it places hardship on the rest of the much larger tax payer base that must pay for it. It is clearly to the financial detriment of the greater number of people in Alberta and to the benefit of just the smaller number people in the union.

You seem to have a dire hatred of corporations that doesn't seem grounded in logic or reality.

Actions are not ethical merely by the fact that it might (in your opinion) result in a benefit for the larger numbers or just because you like them.

What are you basing your claim that all unions don't lobby for the sake of all workers on? I'm not suggesting that some don't focus only on their members, but to make statements like that which are clearly based on your opinion rather than fact really weaken the rest of your arguments.

Yes unions are awful for asking for raises for their members, now the taxpayers will have to seek raises from their employers so they can better their lives and keep up with inflation. It shouldn't be too tough because in case you haven't noticed over the last hundred years, non union employers compete with union wages(and benefits) so that their employees don't unionize. And if they don't get their raise well I guess they could always unionize. Oh wait none of those situations should be plausible because they would somewhat dismiss your claim that unions aren't lobbying for everyone's benefit and that asking for wage increases for their members is unethical, because there may be some benefit to people outside of their evil little club?

[V]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Suncor might be the only one. TransCanada, CNRL perhaps.

But still, "multi billion dollar profits; oil & gas companies" is hyperbole.

I'm way behind in this conversation, but didn't Cenovus post a 618 million dollar net income in 2015?

They laid off a crap tonne of people in 2015.

[Mr.Coffee]

I'm trying to understand the logic of the people upset with a company making a profit and laying people off.

Companies don't exist to provide jobs. If there was a company out there that was egregiously overstaffed, from what I've heard, Cenovus was it.

Are oil companies supposed to just keep people employed doing nothing?

[Dion]

MAXIMUM IMPACT

Miniumum-wage increase isn’t $1-per-year increase as many people are stating, it’s $1.15 per hour. Every hour that an employee works will cost the employer $1.15 per hour. I own a small restaurant, and in 2015, I used 25,933 individual hours. Plus the UI, CPP, and WCB, that $1 per hour cost me over $31,000. Now the wage is going up another $1/hr. so that’s another $31,000, so that’s $62,000 extra expense in two years. Next year, another $1.40 per hour. So that will be $130,000 in three years. I’m so sick and tired of everyone saying it’s only $1/hour. It’s $130,000 gone from the bottom line. We don’t make that much. So, hours have to be cut, staff has to be let go. The problem with NDP supporters as they only see $1/hour, I see $130,000 and bankruptcy. I totally agree everyone should be able to put food on the table and feed their kids. When did it become the small-business owner’s responsibility? It’s the government’s responsibility. The year after another $1.40, do the math, it’s death to small business.

Gerry Champagne

(Small-business owners have been sounding this alarm for a while to deaf ears in Edmonton.)

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/09/25...r-sept-25-2016

[V]

I never said that. I'm just disputing the claim that these companies aren't making gobs and gobs of money. People seem to like to make these companies out to be poor charity cases that are just at the mercy of an incompetent government. I find that interesting, that's all.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

MAXIMUM IMPACT



http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/09/25...r-sept-25-2016

Shouldn't they be thankful that, according to everyone, the NDP is keeping the oil and gas industry in the crapper? If not for their vigilance in preventing a potential boom, this owner would have been forced to close his doors sooner because when all the other businesses raise their wages to compete and retain employees, his poor business model that only thrives when he can pay his employees a wage that keeps them in poverty would prove to be a failure.

In all seriousness, these stories are unfortunate for the owners but really, how successful can a business be with such small profit margins? People are very quick to say businesses aren't required to keep people employed, but in these cases those same people will cry foul rather than say consumers and governments aren't required to keep poorly run businesses in business.

Edit: Anyone else see the irony at the end of his rant about how lousy the government's plan for keeping workers out of poverty is? Where he says the government should be the ones fixing it? This is how they are addressing it, by taking away the ability for companies to keep their workers poor. This may reduce jobs in the short term if some poorly run businesses shut down, but the better run ones should gain the consumer dollars from those that are lost, which should in turn lead to growth for those companies and the creation of GOOD jobs

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In all seriousness, these stories are unfortunate for the owners but really, how successful can a business be with such small profit margins? People are very quick to say businesses aren't required to keep people employed, but in these cases those same people will cry foul rather than say consumers and governments aren't required to keep poorly run businesses in business.

Which is better for workers and the economy: A marginally successful business employing 4 people (plus the owner) or a formerly marginally successful business going bankrupt and employing zero people.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Shouldn't they be thankful that, according to everyone, the NDP is keeping the oil and gas industry in the crapper? If not for their vigilance in preventing a potential boom, this owner would have been forced to close his doors sooner because when all the other businesses raise their wages to compete and retain employees, his poor business model that only thrives when he can pay his employees a wage that keeps them in poverty would prove to be a failure.

In all seriousness, these stories are unfortunate for the owners but really, how successful can a business be with such small profit margins? People are very quick to say businesses aren't required to keep people employed, but in these cases those same people will cry foul rather than say consumers and governments aren't required to keep poorly run businesses in business.

From what I read it looks as if the owner will go out of business with employees losing their jobs. Not a happy situation for either side.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Which is better for workers and the economy: A marginally successful business employing 4 people (plus the owner) or a formerly marginally successful business going bankrupt and employing zero people.

A marginally successful business keeping 4 people in poverty so that 1 owner can make money is not a good thing. The collateral damage is us the tax payers have to subsidize their incomes through social assistance so that the owner can make money. Workers don't get to keep a job if they aren't good at it, why should small business owners get to keep a business they aren't running well enough to pay people a living wage to work at? If you even consider $15/hour a living wage in Alberta.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Edit: Anyone else see the irony at the end of his rant about how lousy the government's plan for keeping workers out of poverty is? Where he says the government should be the ones fixing it? This is how they are addressing it, by taking away the ability for companies to keep their workers poor. This may reduce jobs in the short term if some poorly run businesses shut down, but the better run ones should gain the consumer dollars from those that are lost, which should in turn lead to growth for those companies and the creation of GOOD jobs

He's saying the govt should do more than just raising the minimum wage. Small businesses will do their part but that alone won't get people out of poverty. With an unemployment rate near %10 the NDP needs to do more to help create an economic climate where businesses can thrive and not die.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A marginally successful business keeping 4 people in poverty so that 1 owner can make money is not a good thing. The collateral damage is us the tax payers have to subsidize their incomes through social assistance so that the owner can make money. Workers don't get to keep a job if they aren't good at it, why should small business owners get to keep a business they aren't running well enough to pay people a living wage to work at? If you even consider $15/hour a living wage in Alberta.

Let's not forget that this business owner could be suffering due to the bad economic climate in Alberta.

When times are good business owners can afford to raise wages due to the increased profits he/she is recieving. When times ar bad business suffers and so do employees.

Raising minmum wages during a bad economic climate is not going to help small business owners survive. The timing is bad.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A marginally successful business keeping 4 people in poverty so that 1 owner can make money is not a good thing. The collateral damage is us the tax payers have to subsidize their incomes through social assistance so that the owner can make money. Workers don't get to keep a job if they aren't good at it, why should small business owners get to keep a business they aren't running well enough to pay people a living wage to work at? If you even consider $15/hour a living wage in Alberta.

So you increase the social assistance costs by 25% by removing the business. Now instead of 4 people needing "social assistance", you have 5. In fact, now you have 5 people making ZERO dollars and needing even MORE social assistance. As well, in the status quo scenario, this small business owner was paying taxes. Where is that revenue shortfall going to come from? Let me guess, the "big corporations" can pay even more right? That will just cause more layoffs and LESS taxes being paid. Where exactly is the money going to come from to pay for your socialist paradise?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

From what I read it looks as if the owner will go out of business with employees losing their jobs. Not a happy situation for either side.

From what I read it seemed like an upset owner trying to gain appeasement, he even makes a couple of contradicting statements in his rant. At one point saying he needs to make job cuts and reduce hours to make up the $130k shortfall, to then claiming it will bankrupt him. He actually provides a lot of good information to really drive home how broken his business model must be.

He claims to have used about 26000 in man hours to run his restaurant. So that would equal about 71 hours used per day, or about 9 full time workers. At the current minimum wage rates he is paying approximately $800 in labour each day. In 3 years he will be paying $130k annually or $356/day more in labour. Now assuming his labour hours calculation did not include himself, in order for him to still be making a $130k annual profit when the minimum wage goes to $15/hour, he would need to be currently making a $712 profit per day on his investment of $800 per day on labour alone. Even if he was only currently making $500/day profit it would still be profitable after the wage increase. If he is currently only making a profit of $356/day(which would indeed bankrupt him with the wage increase), then his return on his current investment is not very good to begin with and sadly would likely be made worse with rising food prices and a loss in business due to the economy. In which case it might help to have some currently minimum wage paid workers to be given a boost so they can maybe become patrons at his restaurant and pass the boost on.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From what I read it seemed like an upset owner trying to gain appeasement, he even makes a couple of contradicting statements in his rant. At one point saying he needs to make job cuts and reduce hours to make up the $130k shortfall, to then claiming it will bankrupt him. He actually provides a lot of good information to really drive home how broken his business model must be.

He claims to have used about 26000 in man hours to run his restaurant. So that would equal about 71 hours used per day, or about 9 full time workers. At the current minimum wage rates he is paying approximately $800 in labour each day. In 3 years he will be paying $130k annually or $356/day more in labour. Now assuming his labour hours calculation did not include himself, in order for him to still be making a $130k annual profit when the minimum wage goes to $15/hour, he would need to be currently making a $712 profit per day on his investment of $800 per day on labour alone. Even if he was only currently making $500/day profit it would still be profitable after the wage increase. If he is currently only making a profit of $356/day(which would indeed bankrupt him with the wage increase), then his return on his current investment is not very good to begin with and sadly would likely be made worse with rising food prices and a loss in business due to the economy. In which case it might help to have some currently minimum wage paid workers to be given a boost so they can maybe become patrons at his restaurant and pass the boost on.

Okay, I usually dont dig the heavy stuff on Sunday nights, but here goes:

Gain appeasement? From who? You do realize hes not in a Union right? The Government isnt just going to give him money to make him happy and vote for them?

Whats your solution?

It sounds to me like you're advocating a standard compensation?

"He doesnt need to make that much money. He should be spreading it around more."

Let them eat cake?

More and more often I keep thinking that before you become awarded with your Union Membership card you should have to be in Business for yourself for a year.

Just for some perspective. Its rough.

It seems like people think you just head to the registry office, incorporate and then just wait for the cash to roll in!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A marginally successful business keeping 4 people in poverty so that 1 owner can make money is not a good thing. The collateral damage is us the tax payers have to subsidize their incomes through social assistance so that the owner can make money. Workers don't get to keep a job if they aren't good at it, why should small business owners get to keep a business they aren't running well enough to pay people a living wage to work at? If you even consider $15/hour a living wage in Alberta.

That's the thinking in places like France, where it's very costly to hire new employees and very difficult to fire them. The result? A much weaker small business sector in the economy, and chronically high unemployment, especially for young people and immigrants.

Youth Unemployment

Canada: 13 per cent
France: 30 per cent

Immigrant Unemployment

Canada: 9 per cent
France: 17 per cent

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Locke

More and more often I keep thinking that before you become awarded with your Union Membership card you should have to be in Business for yourself for a year.

Just for some perspective. Its rough.

It seems like people think you just head to the registry office, incorporate and then just wait for the cash to roll in!

Meh, I don't know - that was pretty much my experience. In fact, and this is a secret I am not sure I should be disclosing to the plebs, when you register your corporation, you get a free $100k from the government just to get you rolling.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by V

I'm way behind in this conversation, but didn't Cenovus post a 618 million dollar net income in 2015?

They laid off a crap tonne of people in 2015.

Originally Posted by V

I never said that. I'm just disputing the claim that these companies aren't making gobs and gobs of money. People seem to like to make these companies out to be poor charity cases that are just at the mercy of an incompetent government. I find that interesting, that's all.

The claim was multi-billion dollar profits.

[puckedoff]

Man takes out mortgage on house, risks startup capital, earns booming $500/day ($200K/year).
Populus: "Thats so much money! Raise minimum wage!"
Man warns that minimum wage increase will force him to reduce staff, potential bankruptcy.
Populus: "Then your weak-margin business is no good!"
Man closes business, all staff lose jobs (including owner, who also loses house)
Populus: "Wierd, who could have saw that coming?"

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From what I read it seemed like an upset owner trying to gain appeasement, he even makes a couple of contradicting statements in his rant. At one point saying he needs to make job cuts and reduce hours to make up the $130k shortfall, to then claiming it will bankrupt him. He actually provides a lot of good information to really drive home how broken his business model must be.

Actually it doesn't provide the information you think it does. Not that it really matters because the point is a general one, but the guy who wrote the letter to the editor owns a Ricki's Grill....not the best restaurant but none the less one of the most successful full service restaurant franchises in Canada. They have about 70 stores. Obviously the business model works. Obviously increasing any business's largest expense by 50% is going to create a problem with that model. Obviously increasing product costs via carbon tax is going to further that problem. And obviously retailing any product means you are at the mercy of that retail market for your pricing. And the stupidest thing is, currently not a single employee walks out of that restaurant having earned minimum wage during their shift.

So just saying it's only bad businesses that is effected by the minimum wage is really annoying. Even Seattle is not seeing the benefit they expected from their first go at a higher minimum wage. And their economy is booming. It really takes a numb skull to think all those "proven" benefits of a higher minimum apply to every business in every location and in every economic circumstance.