10-03-2016, 01:14 PM
|
#3781
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
I think this whole philosophy is where people like myself mainly differ from people like yourself. It reduces your employee to a unit of work, which they are in the eyes of the business. But theyre also people. I'm glad that you consult your employees about management decisions like this, but you're talking about either A) overworking people or B) underpaying people when you could meet a happy medium while taking minimal or even negligible hit to your business. Not judging the way you do business, as it's the way all do business, I just disagree with the personal philosophy of it.
|
I think you have this a little backwards, personally.
A company's operation is defined by units of work. Absent other factors, you hire based on how many people it takes to meet the needs of the work available. Get a new contract, hire more people. Lose a contract, layoffs. So while the number of employees ideally correlates to how many units of work exist, that does not mean that an employee = a unit of work.
But that is also an oversimplification as external factors are at play, and which usually unbalance the equation. The taxes and wage increases we have been debating, for instance, can create unavoidable pressures that necessitate having employees handle more units of work than optimally desired. On the flip side, something like a union contract could create situations where you are stuck with more employees than work available. Bad management can create either scenario, or even both at the same time.
There is always a tipping point where things become unabalanced. In many cases, the NDP has deliberately tilted the table just to see what will happen. That is dangerous and self-serving, imnsho.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:32 PM
|
#3782
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bowness
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
I think this whole philosophy is where people like myself mainly differ from people like yourself. It reduces your employee to a unit of work, which they are in the eyes of the business. But theyre also people. I'm glad that you consult your employees about management decisions like this, but you're talking about either A) overworking people or B) underpaying people when you could meet a happy medium while taking minimal or even negligible hit to your business. Not judging the way you do business, as it's the way all do business, I just disagree with the personal philosophy of it.
|
Our shareholders are also people who deserve to have their investment curated and expanded in value, and our Board is legally obligated to them.
We fulfill that obligation in part by paying our core employees well (most of whom have nearly 2 decades of tenure) and keeping morale high by keeping them involved in labour and business decisions, and invested in the performance of the company so they can be as productive as they are. We can't afford to and will not make uneconomic decisions for emotional or ideological reasons.
We use our own analysis and keep our own council to determine how to leverage low cost/value employees and high cost/value employees appropriately.
I'm not going to answer your or any other investment/productivity/profit questions in any more fine detail as I feel you are hoping for a debating "win" to catch me in some kind of loophole that for some reason you see after looking at our numbers for a few minutes, that we missed after doing the same for years.
I am confident that we will cross the break-even point with a $15/hr minimum wage. If our employees ask us to hire more help (either directly by turning down the required overtime or by showing signs of being overly burnt out), we probably would reconsider, but for now those jobs are hard to justify.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:36 PM
|
#3783
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
Our shareholders are also people who deserve to have their investment curated and expanded in value, and our Board is legally obligated to them.
We fulfill that obligation in part by paying our core employees well (most of whom have nearly 2 decades of tenure) and keeping morale high by keeping them involved in labour and business decisions, and invested in the performance of the company so they can be as productive as they are. We can't afford to and will not make uneconomic decisions for emotional or ideological reasons.
We use our own analysis and keep our own council to determine how to leverage low cost/value employees and high cost/value employees appropriately.
I'm not going to answer your or any other investment/productivity/profit questions in any more fine detail as I feel you are hoping for a debating "win" to catch me in some kind of loophole that for some reason you see after looking at our numbers for a few minutes, that we missed after doing the same for years.
I am confident that we will cross the break-even point with a $15/hr minimum wage. If our employees ask us to hire more help (either directly by turning down the required overtime or by showing signs of being overly burnt out), we probably would reconsider, but for now those jobs are hard to justify.
|
Wow....as someone who is living in an NDP Province at the moment I cant imagine what that must be like...it sounds fantastic.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:41 PM
|
#3784
|
Franchise Player
|
Just FYI, in Canada, the board owes a duty to the Corporation's best interest. Not to the best interest of its shareholders, as is the case in the USA. There are important differences, in practice.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:48 PM
|
#3785
|
Retired
|
This has gone so far off the rails and devolved into a pseudo-economic theory debate which is getting nowhere, other than, there's a large gap in ideals here. I would have liked to hear more about how market imperfections and even exploitation can be managed by government through regulation -- or not -- that's a real debate. This has focused on raising minimum wage to help the poor and unskilled, and that's just not the way to go about it.
Next post to deal with Alberta Politics News.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:50 PM
|
#3786
|
Retired
|
The embattled NDP has their leader come out saying they won't support a mandatory $10/tonne carbon tax from the feds unless there are pipelines built.
They seem to have forgotten they've imposed a $20/tonne carbon tax themselves.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...eline-progress
The NDP are just going to NDP, I guess.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 01:54 PM
|
#3787
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bowness
|
@CHL
I sit as a Board Member at the pleasure of my shareholders. I am President at the pleasure of the board, so it is ultimately the shareholders that call the shots regardless of the technical definition.
My role as I understand it is to expand business profits and value, which is in both the Corporation and the shareholder's interests. I would characterize yours as a distinction without a difference.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 02:06 PM
|
#3788
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
Our shareholders are also people who deserve to have their investment curated and expanded in value, and our Board is legally obligated to them.
We fulfill that obligation in part by paying our core employees well (most of whom have nearly 2 decades of tenure) and keeping morale high by keeping them involved in labour and business decisions, and invested in the performance of the company so they can be as productive as they are. We can't afford to and will not make uneconomic decisions for emotional or ideological reasons.
We use our own analysis and keep our own council to determine how to leverage low cost/value employees and high cost/value employees appropriately.
I'm not going to answer your or any other investment/productivity/profit questions in any more fine detail as I feel you are hoping for a debating "win" to catch me in some kind of loophole that for some reason you see after looking at our numbers for a few minutes, that we missed after doing the same for years.
I am confident that we will cross the break-even point with a $15/hr minimum wage. If our employees ask us to hire more help (either directly by turning down the required overtime or by showing signs of being overly burnt out), we probably would reconsider, but for now those jobs are hard to justify.
|
I hear you, I'm not trying to catch some loophole, just trying to break down the philosophies to get a better understanding of either side. Personally I don't necessairly agree with a minimum wage but I base that on these models, and these models are built on efficiency of productivity, not maximizing profit.
I get that this is the legal side of doing business, but can't you see how that's flawed and why it kind of necessitates a minimum wage? If the wages aren't allocated properly, and all parts of the business see growth to keep those margins at an equilibrium, a minimum wage has to be implemented to keep the whole system from (eventually)reaching a point of diminishing returns. The question here is how much, which is up to interpretation, but it wouldn't be if businesses followed the market the way they claim to.
This type of shifting all of it to higher level employees is the excuse people have been using for years in major crporations to gift themselves 100's of millions of dollars. Not saying you're pullling it to that degree of course, again just looking at the philosophy you can see how it starts to breakdown.
__________________
Last edited by Coach; 10-03-2016 at 02:09 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 02:09 PM
|
#3789
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The embattled NDP has their leader come out saying they won't support a mandatory $10/tonne carbon tax from the feds unless there are pipelines built.
They seem to have forgotten they've imposed a $20/tonne carbon tax themselves.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...eline-progress
The NDP are just going to NDP, I guess.
|
Try not to be disingenuous, the answer is right there in the first sentence:
Quote:
In Ottawa Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the federal Liberal government would set a minimum carbon price for provinces in 2018 of $10 per tonne, rising to $50 by 2022.
In the House of Commons, Trudeau said it will be up to provinces how they implement the plan, with Ottawa prepared to act if they don’t.
Notley’s NDP government will introduce its own broad-based carbon tax based on the equivalent of $20 per tonne of carbon emissions on Jan. 1, 2017, rising to $30 in 2018, with no further increases planned at the moment.
|
I really hate having to defend the NDP, so try to limit the amount I have to do it.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 02:13 PM
|
#3790
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bowness
|
We paid a fair amount above the old minimum wage, at a level that made economic sense and enabled us to retain valued employees (including the students that to a person were happy to return year after year and thereby were valued and compensated more in each subsequent year).
I can't speak for the province as a whole, but I'm saying that the old minimum wage level was fine for us (below our threshold) and the new level will cost potential employees entry level jobs and shift that money to people who already make 65-100K+.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 02:40 PM
|
#3791
|
Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Try not to be disingenuous, the answer is right there in the first sentence:
I really hate having to defend the NDP, so try to limit the amount I have to do it.
|
I was aware of that, but consider (1) the NDP were trying to be the pioneers in this, and (2) saying they won't get on board when it is $10 when they already implemented $20 to start, is disingenuous. It may be the article did not set out the NDP's entire positions.
Also, many were of the view the $20 the NDP implemented was a start with further increases to come, it just was not politically wise to announce so at the time.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 02:49 PM
|
#3792
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
I dunno, they are saying we have our plan, if you want us on your plan, you are going to have to do more on pipelines. Seams a decent enough strategy to me.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 05:16 PM
|
#3793
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Bit of a mixed message, but yes, it is nice to see Notley at least trying to look a little tough in her interactions with Ottawa. Doesn't hurt that the sheen has worn right off Trudeau lately.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 07:20 PM
|
#3794
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
On the flip side, something like a union contract could create situations where you are stuck with more employees than work available. Bad management can create either scenario, or even both at the same time.
|
I'm not sure what your experience has been in dealing with unions or collective bargaining, but I have never seen a collective agreement that does not have language in it surrounding layoffs. You can never be forced to keep people employed when there is no work available, you simply have to layoff/recall employees by seniority.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:12 PM
|
#3795
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The embattled NDP has their leader come out saying they won't support a mandatory $10/tonne carbon tax from the feds unless there are pipelines built.
They seem to have forgotten they've imposed a $20/tonne carbon tax themselves.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...eline-progress
The NDP are just going to NDP, I guess.
|
So now you are upset that they are trying to get pipelines approved to stimulate the economy? Because they oppose a long term higher carbon tax, that makes them hypocritical in your view? Are you sure you don't just have a blind hatred for this party that is not entirely based on their policies alone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
I was aware of that, but consider (1) the NDP were trying to be the pioneers in this, and (2) saying they won't get on board when it is $10 when they already implemented $20 to start, is disingenuous. It may be the article did not set out the NDP's entire positions.
Also, many were of the view the $20 the NDP implemented was a start with further increases to come, it just was not politically wise to announce so at the time.
|
So in trying to stay ahead of the federal government they are being disengenuous? It's been pointed out already what the figures are and why the NDP is not supporting the liberal plan, but let me ask you your opinion on what makes more political sense. The NDP trying to go along with what the federal government is going to implement whether they like it or not, and being proactive in doing so before being forced which could earn some future political goodwill. Or taking Brian Jean's approach which is to argue against any of these taxes while promising to argue for pipelines until he's blue in the face(pun unintended), because it suits his constituents? Even though at the end of the day no one who approves what he wants has to do anything just because he wants it. "We want piplelines! No we're not in favour of your tax! Oh you're going to make us pay it anyways? Well you better give us our pipelines! Hello? Helllo?"
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:33 PM
|
#3796
|
Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
So now you are upset that they are trying to get pipelines approved to stimulate the economy? Because they oppose a long term higher carbon tax, that makes them hypocritical in your view? Are you sure you don't just have a blind hatred for this party that is not entirely based on their policies alone?
So in trying to stay ahead of the federal government they are being disengenuous? It's been pointed out already what the figures are and why the NDP is not supporting the liberal plan, but let me ask you your opinion on what makes more political sense. The NDP trying to go along with what the federal government is going to implement whether they like it or not, and being proactive in doing so before being forced which could earn some future political goodwill. Or taking Brian Jean's approach which is to argue against any of these taxes while promising to argue for pipelines until he's blue in the face(pun unintended), because it suits his constituents? Even though at the end of the day no one who approves what he wants has to do anything just because he wants it. "We want piplelines! No we're not in favour of your tax! Oh you're going to make us pay it anyways? Well you better give us our pipelines! Hello? Helllo?"
|
I'm only quoting this so he can't delete or change it. It's actually pure idiocy but I'll get to that when I have some time. I think just ensuring the post can't change is enough for posterity.
Last edited by Kjesse; 10-03-2016 at 08:38 PM.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:37 PM
|
#3797
|
Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I dunno, they are saying we have our plan, if you want us on your plan, you are going to have to do more on pipelines. Seams a decent enough strategy to me.
|
It certainly pisses off the environmentalists.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:42 PM
|
#3798
|
Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I'm not sure what your experience has been in dealing with unions or collective bargaining, but I have never seen a collective agreement that does not have language in it surrounding layoffs. You can never be forced to keep people employed when there is no work available, you simply have to layoff/recall employees by seniority.
|
The true colours show through. Union guy, seniority matters in every agreement he has seen, merit, skill or price do not factor.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:51 PM
|
#3799
|
RANDOM USER TITLE CHANGE
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The true colours show through. Union guy, seniority matters in every agreement he has seen, merit, skill or price do not factor.
|
Hey man, I'm a union guy. I've said it before, but it's like the twilight zone. I notice the attitude specifically with people who have been around a long time. Battle tested NDP voters for sure.
In the end it came down to, if you can't beat em, join em. The government is always hiring, they're never too bloated.
|
|
|
10-03-2016, 08:53 PM
|
#3800
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wearing raccoons for boots
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The true colours show through. Union guy, seniority matters in every agreement he has seen, merit, skill or price do not factor.
|
You obviously didnt read the Canada Post lockout/strike thread...
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:12 AM.
|
|