Ontario Privatization?

[SkyRider]

Would you be an interested buyer if Ontario privatize Ontario Lottery, Liquor Board and Ontario Hydro? Seems like these entities produce an almost guaranteed income stream.

[Brill]

It was a bad move selling off the 407, in my opinion.

Hydro, probably the same thing for the same reasons.

Lottery, only if tightly regulated to keep out criminals.

Liquor, sure - go for it! It can still be regulated and taxed like cigarettes.

[Brill]

How about having the province take over grocery stores? Would prices go up and selection go down?
If the reason for the government to hang on to a segment is because it makes money, then they should grab them all. :eek:

[Tangwhich]

I strongly oppose the privatization of essential services of which Hydro is one. If we did that, what's next, water treatment? The others, go crazy.

[Mencken]

Years ago when Alberta privatized the liquor stores they based it on their analysis that the part of the business that made money was the control and distribution, and the retail end cost them because of civil cervant wages, unions, etc. So they sold that part only. Makes them nothing but money now, and started many many small businesses which created a minin boom in the economy. However it is really hard to know how they did on selling the actual store locations...very few of them were purchased as they were way too big for liquor stores.

[duang]

I strongly oppose the privatization of essential services of which Hydro is one. If we did that, what's next, water treatment? The others, go crazy.

Government is inherently inefficient compared to the private sector and as long as it is monitored the private sector can run it at much less cost and potentially with much more of a service mentality for the public.

We have enough wasteful public unions and bureaucracy: privatize anything that doesn't have to be done by a central government. Anything where there is a conflict between public good and profit margins can be monitored by the government much more easily than letting the government run the whole show.

Prisons, Hydro, alcohol sales, garbage collection, transit, health care, etc..: cut out all the fat possible that comes from public services.

Think how many more services could be provided by the freed up resources. Or how much taxes could be lowered so you would be able to live better from your hard work.

I personally would much rather be served by someone who is motivated to give me the best possible service rather than someone in a union who can't lose their job, has little pay incentive to excel and is hidebound by regulations and bureaucracy.

One can only hope...

D.

[Brill]

I personally would much rather be served by someone who is motivated to give me the best possible service rather than someone in a union who can't lose their job, has little pay incentive to excel and is hidebound by regulations and bureaucracy.Being private doesn't mean we toss out regulations, I hope. There's nothing to say a union couldn't come in either.
What would the employees be motivated by which would be different if they were working for a private company?

[good to go]

Hydro is not a big one to sell off, they will lose money in the next few years anyways. With all of the effecient systems being put in homes the next step is to have each home with their own fuel cells anyways.

That is why they are pushing for the energy grants to get homes down to a minimal electricity user to better accomidate the fuel cell systems that will be put in within the next 5 years. Each home will have it's own fuel cell with the ability to generate electricity to sell back to the grid and make them equity neutral. when you need it you buy it and when you dont you sell back to the grid.

[Tangwhich]

Government is inherently inefficient compared to the private sector and as long as it is monitored the private sector can run it at much less cost and potentially with much more of a service mentality for the public.

We have enough wasteful public unions and bureaucracy: privatize anything that doesn't have to be done by a central government. Anything where there is a conflict between public good and profit margins can be monitored by the government much more easily than letting the government run the whole show.

Prisons, Hydro, alcohol sales, garbage collection, transit, health care, etc..: cut out all the fat possible that comes from public services.

Think how many more services could be provided by the freed up resources. Or how much taxes could be lowered so you would be able to live better from your hard work.

I personally would much rather be served by someone who is motivated to give me the best possible service rather than someone in a union who can't lose their job, has little pay incentive to excel and is hidebound by regulations and bureaucracy.

One can only hope...

D.

I don't care how much it costs, I don't want for profit organizations taking responsiblity for our water supply. There are some things, no matter how inefficient that government run may be should not be in private hands. If we did, where would it stop? The police, the military, the house of commons?

[duang]

Being private doesn't mean we toss out regulations, I hope. There's nothing to say a union couldn't come in either.
What would the employees be motivated by which would be different if they were working for a private company?

Union members often can't be fired and probably don't have the same potential upside on income for outperforming their jobs well.

Private sector employees have much bigger carrots [bigger bonuses and earning potential along with advanced promotion based on merit] compared to a unionized workplace. Private sector employees also face a much bigger stick than union workers since they can be fired and demoted in ways that many union members aren't worried about.

Unions were very valuable in the days when employers had all the power and abused that power. Nowadays unions are often parasitic and are draining the life from many of the institutions they work for [e.g. North American car companies, City of Toronto, etc.]. Unions use their power to get economically unsustainable income for their members to the detriment of consumers and tax payers who have to subsidize the ridiculous premiums that a unionized workforce commands.

The for-profit motives of the private sector have to be recognized and controlled in some sensitive sectors but I would much rather deal with those issues than deal with unions.

D.

[duang]

I don't care how much it costs, I don't want for profit organizations taking responsibility for our water supply. There are some things, no matter how inefficient that government run may be should not be in private hands. If we did, where would it stop? The police, the military, the house of commons?

You're right: you wouldn't want to privatize those areas where you need central oversight for the public's good: police, military, government, transportation design, etc..

Other than that, get the government out of all those other areas where they aren't needed. Unless you're one of the bureaucracy who are benefiting from the inflated costs [i.e. incomes and pensions] you will be better off as a taxpayer and service receiver with the private sector doing the work.

As far as water goes, I'd trust that to a private enterprise which has to do a good job to keep the contract or to earn a larger market share. I don't want some guy managing it by virtue of his years in the union and being monitored by a red tape entangled bureaucracy. But I can see your concern and oversight would be needed to make sure that the good of the public is not outweighed by the striving for profits.

D.

[Brill]

Union members often can't be fired and probably don't have the same potential upside on income for outperforming their jobs well.

Private sector employees have much bigger carrots [bigger bonuses and earning potential along with advanced promotion based on merit] compared to a unionized workplace. Private sector employees also face a much bigger stick than union workers since they can be fired and demoted in ways that many union members aren't worried about.

Unions were very valuable in the days when employers had all the power and abused that power. Nowadays unions are often parasitic and are draining the life from many of the institutions they work for [e.g. North American car companies, City of Toronto, etc.]. Unions use their power to get economically unsustainable income for their members to the detriment of consumers and tax payers who have to subsidize the ridiculous premiums that a unionized workforce commands.

The for-profit motives of the private sector have to be recognized and controlled in some sensitive sectors but I would much rather deal with those issues than deal with unions.

D.

None of this is relevant to the original post.
You haven't mentioned how you ensure unions don't come in to a private sector company. Do you create laws that people can't organize in a group?

[Tangwhich]

You're right: you wouldn't want to privatize those areas where you need central oversight for the public's good: police, military, government, transportation design, etc..

Other than that, get the government out of all those other areas where they aren't needed. Unless you're one of the bureaucracy who are benefiting from the inflated costs [i.e. incomes and pensions] you will be better off as a taxpayer and service receiver with the private sector doing the work.

As far as water goes, I'd trust that to a private enterprise which has to do a good job to keep the contract or to earn a larger market share. I don't want some guy managing it by virtue of his years in the union and being monitored by a red tape entangled bureaucracy. But I can see your concern and oversight would be needed to make sure that the good of the public is not outweighed by the striving for profits.

D.

Not everyone who is in a union is a waste of space. Agreed, too many of them are but not as many as some would have you believe. (for the record, I am in a union, but I'm no big fan of them). I don't see why govt. run organizations and unions can't find balance. If the city had not backed down in the garbage stike we could have gone a fair bit towards that.
That said, I don't want to turn this into a debate about unions, there's already been more than enough threads on that.

As I stated in my first posting, essential services should remain in govt. hands, end of story. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING more important to humanity than water. NO WAY, NO HOW do I want a private company overseeing it.

[Rockslinger]

Not everyone who is in a union is a waste of space.

I always make a distinction between private sector unions subject to market discipline and bully monopolistic public sector unions like the TTC who are willing to throw the taxpayers under the bus (pun intended).

[Anynym]

There is no market reason for privatization of the LCBO, Lottery, or Electric industries, and Alberta has found that their "advantage" from privatization of their liquor stores has evaporated.

Ontario would lose out as well, as our buying power as the world's largest purchaser of alcohol would evaporate.

Instead, Ontario should look to privatize many of the current Government services, such as road testing for drivers. There's no reason it can't be done in a competitive environment with multiple companies (and not selling "regional monopolies" either).

If we wanted to expand our retail liquor sales, then allow "off-license" sales from existing license holders. I.e. a bar could sell you a case or a bottle for you to take home, if they so choose.

[Rockslinger]

I still think that we would get better, more efficient and FRIENDLIER service from private sector employees. Anybody bought TTC tickets from a TTC employee recently? I tried to buy one of those temporary tickets and the TTC guys simply said "NO". He rudely:( said I had to buy at least 5. Why would I buy 5 TEMPORARY tickets that will be worthless in 2 weeks?

[katsrin]

Years ago when Alberta privatized the liquor stores they based it on their analysis that the part of the business that made money was the control and distribution, and the retail end cost them because of civil cervant wages, unions, etc. So they sold that part only. Makes them nothing but money now, and started many many small businesses which created a minin boom in the economy.


I live in Alberta and I hope that is true ... but I have my doubts. One review of privatization reports:

"Government Revenues: When the Klein government privatized liquor retailing in 1993, it promised to keep its annual take (drawn from taxes) "revenue neutral"--a phrase borrowed by the BC government in its announcement. In the last year before privatization, the Alberta government received remittances from liquor of $439 million. Since then, however, under pressure from the private liquor lobby, the government has lowered its tax rates on liquor four times, even as demand has increased. Thus, in 2000/01, government revenues from liquor amounted to only $468 million, or $29 million more than in 1992--a meager gain over the period in question given inflation and the large growth in sales. Also, keep in mind the government must now pay for increased regulation and enforcement out of this diminished revenue."

I can never understand why people want governments to sell profitable assets. It never seems to work out to the benefit of the public in the long run. I would prefer that my government run a few highly profitable businesses, and use the profits to cut taxes.

[Fireseal]

...

Unions were very valuable in the days when employers had all the power and abused that power. Nowadays unions are often parasitic and are draining the life from many of the institutions they work for [e.g. North American car companies, City of Toronto, etc.]. Unions use their power to get economically unsustainable income for their members to the detriment of consumers and tax payers who have to subsidize the ridiculous premiums that a unionized workforce commands.

...


Walmart, the last place on Earth anyone would want to work

[duang]

None of this is relevant to the original post.
You haven't mentioned how you ensure unions don't come in to a private sector company. Do you create laws that people can't organize in a group?

A lot of the conversations here have obviously gone off on a tangent and your comment I was replying to didn't relate to the orignal post either [if that even matters].

Canada is too union friendly in their regulations and should move back to a more neutral balance. As I understand it, many unions recruit by putting pressure on workers to sign up [i.e. no blind voting]. It should be easier for workers and employees to opt out of dealing with unions if they want.

This would be better for consumers, tax payers and the economy.

D.

[shakenbake]

[QUOTE=Anynym;2907615]

Instead, Ontario should look to privatize many of the current Government services, such as road testing for drivers. There's no reason it can't be done in a competitive environment with multiple companies (and not selling "regional monopolies" either).
QUOTE]

Buddy, have you heard, the reason that we haven't had driving tests for about three months is that it was privatised and the union of workers at the privatised testing facilities is on strike?

http://www.drivetest.ca/en/home.aspx

Maybe, they have a monopoly in Ontario driver testing. But, in another industry, do you remember the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor runaway and Consolidated Edison, a private energy company in the USA? I am glad for Hydro One and OPG, despite the iniefficiencies of government control in that industry.

[my2cents]

So for those that are all in favour of selling everything off everything, I suspect you have no problem paying the high prices charged by the 407. Of course you accept being billed years late with a huge interest charge and you rejoice that the current government can do nothing about the 407 practices. Oh yea how much did each taxpayer get back directly when they sold the 407, oh yea nothing.
Sorry this whole privatize everything, it will be better campain, has been shown time and again to have its flaws. Consumers, who used to own the company, get higher prices and nothing in return. Pro union, anti union is another argument than the one of privatizing.
Anytime privatization is mentioned it is wrapped in anti union arguments I say seperate the two arguments because one does not relate to the other.

[shakenbake]

So for those that are all in favour of selling everything off everything, I suspect you have no problem paying the high prices charged by the 407. Of course you accept being billed years late with a huge interest charge and you rejoice that the current government can do nothing about the 407 practices. Oh yea how much did each taxpayer get back directly when they sold the 407, oh yea nothing.
Sorry this whole privatize everything, it will be better campain, has been shown time and again to have its flaws. Consumers, who used to own the company, get higher prices and nothing in return. Pro union, anti union is another argument than the one of privatizing.
Anytime privatization is mentioned it is wrapped in anti union arguments I say seperate the two arguments because one does not relate to the other.

I agree with what you have said 100 %. Although I agreed with some of Harris' Common Sense Revolution, the 407 privatisation debacle was one of the worst things that he did. Thank goodness the power utility and teh LCBO weren't privatised! They latter makes tons of money for the province, and, because of the tax structures in place, booze would be far more expensive in private hands, IMHO.

[hinz]

The privatization is long over due since neither the Tories nor the Liberals have the backbones to make it happen, without adequate NDP votes as roadblocks.

Privatizing 407 makes sense since this force people to pay for the realistic cost to use the highway. Too bad not all 400s series highway are toll and the unions take hostage to the decrepit transportation, while the politicians cut the funding in order to show their consituents, many of them suburban car owners and in the past autombile companies that they work for them.

Regarding LCBO, Ontario should follow Alberta example by privatizing the retail stores, making stores that are essentially cash cows survive and stop subsidizing the money losing ones. Plus, it's always a good thing to stop hiring overpaid union workforce.

For Toronto Hydro, they should privatize long ago to the insitutional investors as long as they have scheme of control agreements, guaranteeing min 10% on the return on net fixed assets. This could be done by having IPO at the TSX and waiting TransCanada Pipeline, Enbridge, Fortis, Canadian Utilities of the world to takeover and have both big insitutional say Teacher's Pension Fund and Mom & Pops retail investors to invest their retirement funds and get the dividends.

Again Union is the stumbling block and helding hostage to all common sense Canadians looking for securing retirements.

As far as the Lotteries are concern, the gaming industry should merge with Woodbine racetracks, Casino Niagara and Rama into one big entity which monopolize all gambling and betting entertainment in Ontario. This new entity should invest heavily on marketing, technologies to place bets on line, revamping locations for the punters to place the bets similar to day trading stocks at Bay or Wall Streets, while using the big annual surplus to fund a minority to gambling addiction (to cover their butt and slient those religious fundamentalists on the right :rolleyes:) and devote the rest to charity and community projects.

But again both the extreme left and right are stumbling block to the plan.

Who's going to be next? How about TTC and Go Transit?

[SkyRider]

Private vs public ownership is always an interesting debate.

Our telecom companies are all privately owned but heavily government regulated as are Enbridge and TransAlta and to a large degree the banks.

Just heard that the Toronto Police Services submitted a budget of over $900 million for next year. Wonder if the private sector could do a more efficient job at a lower cost?

[good to go]

I still think that we would get better, more efficient and FRIENDLIER service from private sector employees. Anybody bought TTC tickets from a TTC employee recently? I tried to buy one of those temporary tickets and the TTC guys simply said "NO". He rudely:( said I had to buy at least 5. Why would I buy 5 TEMPORARY tickets that will be worthless in 2 weeks?

Yeah , I know that you hate unions. What makes you think that it was his idea to price it and sell it like that. It all comes from above my friend, try and look at both ends of the box. All you see is one problem, if you had to work for these clowns you would really get an eye opener.Most if not all management at the TTC have only a high school education.

[Keebler Elf]

Unions were very valuable in the days when employers had all the power and abused that power.

Because of course today's employers wouldn't abuse their power the instant the unions disappeared.

So naive. :rolleyes:

[Keebler Elf]

There is no better reason than the 407 fiasco for government NOT to sell off the assets in question.

The Lottery Corp and LCBO are licenses to print money (as was the 407). Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One are to an extent as well, but in those cases the benefit is more than it makes economic sense to have them be public or quasi-public because the capital involved is so huge that to get private enterprise involved means spectacular electricity price increases in the short run (Mike Harris, anyone?).

[JohnLarue]

Yeah , I know that you hate unions. What makes you think that it was his idea to price it and sell it like that. It all comes from above my friend, try and look at both ends of the box. All you see is one problem, if you had to work for these clowns you would really get an eye opener.Most if not all management at the TTC have only a high school education.

My boss is an asswipe so I get to treat the customer like an asswipe?

That is the most pathetic excuse for piss poor customer service I have ever heard.

Some of the TTC employees are friendly and curtious, probably because they treat other people with some respect and dignity in thier non-professional life and they understand that without a customer there is no job.

However there are a number of rude ticket takers who treat the customer like shit.
Why do they act this way
1. They are probably self-absorbed, unfriendly, lazy fucks in their non-professional life.(Yeah a professional ticket taker with an attitude, what a joke)
2. They know they can get away with it.

Unions have done some positive things in the past, most notably improve worker safety, however they have out lived their usefulness when customers get treated like shit because a union will protect an asshole from being corrected

[Keebler Elf]

Unions have done some positive things in the past, most notably improve worker safety, however they have out lived their usefulness when customers get treated like shit because a union will protect an asshole from being corrected

Unions are no substitute for being raised properly by your parents. They can't teach manners.

[Rockslinger]

Yeah , I know that you hate unions.

Bad unions should not be exempt from criticism. :(

[Rockslinger]

However there are a number of rude ticket takers who treat the customer like shit.
Why do they act this way
1. They are probably self-absorbed, unfriendly, lazy fucks in their non-professional life.(Yeah a professional ticket taker with an attitude, what a joke)
2. They know they can get away with it.

They are on a power and ego trip. Petty little wannabe aristocrats.

[duang]

Because of course today's employers wouldn't abuse their power the instant the unions disappeared.

So naive. :rolleyes:

Oh, those big bad companies.

Today's employees have much more protection than 100 and 200 years ago when unions were a net positive influence. Now unions are often a net negative influence and their influence should be lessened since they cost consumers more and weaken the economy.

Thank you for your educational comment. I will try to learn from you to lessen my naivite you condescending little... oops, I mean oh wise little elf.

D.

[duang]

There is no better reason than the 407 fiasco for government NOT to sell off the assets in question.

The Lottery Corp and LCBO are licenses to print money (as was the 407). Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One are to an extent as well, but in those cases the benefit is more than it makes economic sense to have them be public or quasi-public because the capital involved is so huge that to get private enterprise involved means spectacular electricity price increases in the short run (Mike Harris, anyone?).

The 407 sell off might very not have been done well but it's still better to look for a way to get running some enterprises out of the government's hands. But you do want to make sure that the long term interests of the taxpayers are being taken care of and that the bureaucrats aren't being paid off by the purchaser.

The Lottery Corp and LCBO aren't profit centers as they like to spin it out to the naive people: they are just extra taxes on consumers. Tax payers would benefit enormously if you ran those without the waste that the government adds to their structure [scads of 6 digit earning middle managers; bottle shufflers being paid way more than the $30K per year they deserve; etc.].

Pensions would buy into the utilities in a heartbeat [see today's National Post] and I would much rather have private enterprise running these than the short term dolts in government. Do you think they are doing a good job? I don't think so unless you happen to be one of the overpaid enjoying the cushy job and gold plated pension.

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2360120

I don't think you really make much sense here by invoking Mike Harris since I think the price increases were due to trying to reflect the true cost of energy. The prices charged are artificially low to keep it palatable and the tax payer is absorbing the difference to keep the low prices. Better to face reality and start to show consumers what energy really costs instead of keeping your head in the sand.

D.

[hinz]

I don't think you really make much sense here by invoking Mike Harris since I think the price increases were due to trying to reflect the true cost of energy. The prices charged are artificially low to keep it palatable and the tax payer is absorbing the difference to keep the low prices. Better to face reality and start to show consumers what energy really costs instead of keeping your head in the sand.

Mike Harris is a wuss when it comes to seriously cut the fats out of the system.

Like other so-called "fiscal Conversatives" on paper, they do not have the backbones to cut the fat and raise the fees/taxes to fix and balance the budget, money that is vital as emergency reserve to perfect storm like the "Great Recession" following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers.

Guess it doesn't matter since the politicians of all stripes follow the maxim of spending the way out of their messes they dig deep in by promising entitlements without the sacriface necessary to pay the cost for upkeeping. They argue, correctly that this is the "price" for a democracy since no sane politicians would risk their careers, tell the constituents the inconvienient, ugly truths by doing these simple, not easy resolutions.

Somethings never change and learn when the majority bet their kids and grandkids would understand and pay for the bills....eventually to fix their mess. :rolleyes:

[21pro]

uhmmm... perhaps this entire thread is a political argument?

[duang]

Would you be an interested buyer if Ontario privatize Ontario Lottery, Liquor Board and Ontario Hydro? Seems like these entities produce an almost guaranteed income stream.

Today's National Post:


Michael Nobrega, president and chief executive of Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), says his pension plan has weathered the economic crisis. The bounce in equity markets and the strength of OMERS' real-estate and infrastructure portfolio has helped take the bite out of 2008's dismal returns, a decline of 15.3%. Mr. Nobrega, a former accountant who grew up in Guyana, is looking forward to the future. While OMERS lost its bid in October to buy the Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom, he does see "huge" opportunities in infrastructure and real estate, particularly assets the Ontario government may put on the auction block to offset its deficit, estimated to be $24.7-billion this fiscal year alone. In an interview this week, Mr. Nobrega talks about the assets the pension plan is most interested in acquiring and why OMERS would run them better than the Ontario government.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2360120#ixzz0aAJqFxTG
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2360120

If OMERS is interested it seems safe to assume that other pension plans would be too.

D.

[duang]

Mike Harris is a wuss when it comes to seriously cut the fats out of the system.

Like other so-called "fiscal Conservatives" on paper, they do not have the backbones to cut the fat and raise the fees/taxes to fix and balance the budget, money that is vital as emergency reserve to perfect storm like the "Great Recession" following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers.

Guess it doesn't matter since the politicians of all stripes follow the maxim of spending the way out of their messes they dig deep in by promising entitlements without the sacrifice necessary to pay the cost for upkeeping. They argue, correctly that this is the "price" for a democracy since no sane politicians would risk their careers, tell the constituents the inconvienient, ugly truths by doing these simple, not easy resolutions.

Somethings never change and learn when the majority bet their kids and grandkids would understand and pay for the bills....eventually to fix their mess. :rolleyes:

I agree, even the so-called Conservatives don't have the cojones to actually cut spending. I still hold out hope that if they get a majority they might actually act like Conservatives and cut spending so they can lower taxes while downsizing government.

D.

[hinz]

I agree, even the so-called Conservatives don't have the cojones to actually cut spending. I still hold out hope that if they get a majority they might actually act like Conservatives and cut spending so they can lower taxes while downsizing government.

The chance is slim since we're living in a democracy and people vote for the politicians who share the same wave length and further the agendas that suit their immediate needs, not necessarily for the good of the country.

As far as having the Tories to be a majority, don't count on them "walk the talk" since it's more convienient and easier for them to be social conservatives to win votes instead of having common sense to do the "heavy lifting", meaning raising user fees and cutting non-essential government services altogether while simultaneously implementing "severence packages" to buyout baby boomer civil servants to retire early, (rehiring them as consultants on contract basis at a fraction of cost if necessary) and grandfather the generous, not sustainable DB plan for most government departments, except discplinary services. New hired going forward are going to have DC plan with government matching.

Assuming if any of the ideas above could be implemented and that's big IF, income taxes should be lower and CRA should be shrunk. Whatever costs saved should be used to pay down debts and improve spending incrementally on the military.

One must be dreaming all of them could happen in this land without violent resistance from the Union and the NDP. Do not be surprised the fiscal health of the government is going to be disturbingly identical to General Motors or Chrysler of world.:rolleyes:

[hinz]

Just heard that the Toronto Police Services submitted a budget of over $900 million for next year. Wonder if the private sector could do a more efficient job at a lower cost?

I assume you are not suggesting City Hall and the Police to cut cost by outsourcing some duties and hiring guards from Xe, formerly known as the Blackwater to arm to the teeth on patrol, and execute search warrents and arrests in neighborhood say Jane and Finch or Regent Park areas.....:eek:

[JohnLarue]

I assume you are not suggesting City Hall and the Police to cut cost by outsourcing some duties and hiring guards from Xe, formerly known as the Blackwater to arm to the teeth on patrol, and execute search warrents and arrests in neighborhood say Jane and Finch or Regent Park areas.....:eek:

If you were to look closely at that budget, I suspect you would find a huge amount is spent on administration.
Is there waste?
In most government run agencies yes

[Keebler Elf]

The prices charged are artificially low to keep it palatable and the tax payer is absorbing the difference to keep the low prices. Better to face reality and start to show consumers what energy really costs instead of keeping your head in the sand.

Correct, but Mike Harris came up with a galactically stupid and short sighted plan that thought private enterprise would reduce electricity prices. Sure, in the long run. But in the short run everyone's electricity prices doubled and he had to backpedal faster than Michael Jackson can moonwalk to keep from getting turfed out of office.

That's why governments since have been weening the public off subsidized electricity prices a little bit every year.

[Keebler Elf]

Now unions are often a net negative influence and their influence should be lessened since they cost consumers more and weaken the economy.

If you mean a net negative because they represent and protect the rights of workers, you would be correct.

Otherwise, not so much.

Fess up, you're a union hater. It's obvious.

[duang]

If you mean a net negative because they represent and protect the rights of workers, you would be correct.

Otherwise, not so much.

Fess up, you're a union hater. It's obvious.

I mean unions are negative because they extract unfairly generous pay for themselves that harms consumers and the economy.

Of course I'm a union hater: I'm a capitalist and believe in the free market and earning my fair share through my hard work.

By the way, I also hate cancer which does the same thing to our bodies that unions do to our country. Have a problem with that too?

D.

[hinz]

If you mean a net negative because they represent and protect the rights of workers, you would be correct.

Otherwise, not so much.

Fess up, you're a union hater. It's obvious.

The concept of Union was noble but it has outlived its usefulness nowadays.

Not necessarily a Union basher/hater no matter what or by default, but the Union nowadays remind me of Napoleon in the Animal Farm-"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." :rolleyes:

[my2cents]

The concept of Union was noble but it has outlived its usefulness nowadays.

Not necessarily a Union basher/hater no matter what or by default, but the Union nowadays remind me of Napoleon in the Animal Farm-"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." :rolleyes:

You may want to ask current workers whose work load have incresed, thus needing more hours to complete the tasks but not being paid the overtime. This is happening all too often these days like in banks where workers have taken the banks to court (yea I wonder how many this ahappened to who couldn't afford a lawyer). Yes there are problems with unions but there is also problems with companies exploiting workers of what is owed to them. Perhaps you want to be considered a part time employee when you have worked years at the same company putting in full time hours?
You don't think companies would love to pay below minimum wage to workers and make them work llong hours without compensation of course they would. Don't give me the line of "that the workers can leave" since in the current economy many don't have the choice.

[hinz]

You may want to ask current workers whose work load have incresed, thus needing more hours to complete the tasks but not being paid the overtime. This is happening all too often these days like in banks where workers have taken the banks to court (yea I wonder how many this ahappened to who couldn't afford a lawyer).Yes there are problems with unions but there is also problems with companies exploiting workers of what is owed to them. Perhaps you want to be considered a part time employee when you have worked years at the same company putting in full time hours?

Like I said before, I am not Union bashing by default. I am equally bashful to the other extreme.

Having once worked for one of the big six banks I could hear the CSR rationale when she tried to take CIBC to court but like you said before, she could leave and work for the competitors but again she probably had too much at stakes at CIBC, say Mortgages and line of credits with interest rate at prime for staffs and substantial DB plan accumulated for years ;)

I'm afraid she could be let go not because she sue her employer but she had "unsatisfactory" job performance due to falling short to achieve sales targets.

As far as the banks are concern, I am sure you are fully aware the power of the banks by now. Like it or not, one way or another, you'll pay the cost for using the service. Banks are not charities and even for charities they need to reign in cost on administration to deploy additional resources to fight for the cause.

The only thing you can control will be how much you have to pay.

BTW, some SME argue vocally they should boycott the Visa/Mastercard Debit cards before they roll out and disclose their discount fees in 2010, while refusing to give cash discount after taxes for the clients who are willing to pay cash. Again the banks could rachet up deposits fees at the branch or if they really piss the banks so much that the banks simply cut their credit lines during the time for additional cash flows to pay the bills.

It could be worse when some small businesses take cash only transactions and result to have thieves armed to the teeth and rob their businesses just before closing the business hours...cause that's where the money is. It will be inevitable to spend big on erecting security measures but would that defeat the purpose to save money for not accepting Debit & Credit as methods of payments?

Simply put, it's a game of chicken or pushing the envelope. The banks will push the limit but not too much to make the clients snapped and lose everything.

Not sure the Unions are equally good at this game since they would rather kill the cash cows than reining in unsustainable entitlements. Just take a look at the Detriot Three, TTC and our bloated 3 levels of governments. Maybe not for TTC and governments cause the Union counts on the other taxpayers to pay the bills.


You don't think companies would love to pay below minimum wage to workers and make them work llong hours without compensation of course they would. Don't give me the line of "that the workers can leave" since in the current economy many don't have the choice.

Maybe a tiny minority but doubtful for the majority who are not that short-sighted and see the importance of having sustainable cash cows/golden goose.

BTW, since when is it a crime to improve people standard of livings sustainably and ethically, thus earning good money as a result of this outcome?

Maybe it's a crime by default for those extreme left and religious right. Not good to see the societies are taken hostages by these fanatics, instead of people running the system based on meritocracies, fairness and common sense.

[NYguardianangel]

I worked for Ontario Hydro back when it was called Ontario Hydro... and I know first hand the way the Union worked it's ways within the company... now I'm not going to get into a Union.... non-union debate; But I would like to say, there is no way that an essential service like our LIGHTS and HEAT should be privatized that is criminal. As for the LCBO, which is a money maker.. to the point of the 407... Which should have never been sold either... neither should the LCBO... Ok now for the OLG. Which is the biggest screw up since Dunkirk, This needs to be privatized, cleaned up and then taken public. After all OLG covers tracks, lotteries, casinos and scratch tickets... it needs to be cleaned and fixed, with charges to each section that defrauds the public.

Taking the OLG private will clean it up or destroy it... if it lasts, then go IPO and make it a Publicly traded company on the TMX...

Just my opinion, what the hell do I know... I'm a photographer after all :P

[bambam123]

The Lottery Corp and LCBO are licenses to print money

say fucken what ????????

obviously you have no fucking clue about business and economic models and how they work

....other than that, it is really a deep question

anything run by the government iS ALWAYS beyond INefficient, but if these things are making them money (and i do think that they get hefty profits from them, unless they're spending all those profits on sp's bahahahahaha) , then one has to be a total moron to give them all up

[Rockslinger]

As far as the banks are concern,

Contrast the excellent service (with a smile) one gets from a bank teller versus the crappy service from a TTC unionized ticket collector. Enought said.

[hinz]

Contrast the excellent service (with a smile) one gets from a bank teller versus the crappy service from a TTC unionized ticket collector. Enought said.

Those working for the banks, from the branch manager to the bank tellers have to smile b/c they want you to feel "special" since you may be receptive to listen any sales pitches. Every one of them have aggressive sales targets to achieve.

As long as they have done their compliance and diligence to get ya to borrow from them and/or invest your hard earn money on their products, they couldn't care less of who you are since you're just one of the millions out there paying the "annuities".:rolleyes:

TTC unionized workforce, on the other hand, have zero incentives to achieve high KPI since they have already taken the transit and the City Hall hostages. Their attitudes are disturbingly identical to bail out i-bankers working for Wall Street firms, meaning they're too big to fail and the taxpayers better give them money or else!!

Unless somehow to get TTC and City Hall under receivership/chapter 11/in bankruptcy and allow the court to renege any outragious not fair entitlements and expenses, I do not see TTC stops being known as Take The Car in my lifetime. The political system is paralized but not yet as bad as the Capitol Hill in DC

[Rockslinger]

Those working for the banks, from the branch manager to the bank tellers have to smile b/c they want you to feel "special" .

But, I am special:p. The bank even gave me a nice 2010 calendar.

[hinz]

But, I am special. The bank even gave me a nice 2010 calendar.

Sure but the money for printing 2010 calendars are from fees charge on services and deposits from you and me.

BTW, you could always get free calendars from Real Estate agents who could deduct those as business expenses....

Or you could have patience and wait until the end of January to pay your SI Swimsuit Calendar with complimentary poster for 50%-60% off the original cost :rolleyes: