http://www.nupge.ca/content/5865/nape-l ... t-products
Shouldn't be too hard . . .
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
Boycott of Labatt
-
The_Jester
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:01 pm
- Location: Peterborough
Boycott of Labatt
"The time for delay is over, we need to address the threat of climate change activism immediately if we hope to protect the future prosperity of our children’s employers." Scott Vrooman
-
MatttthewGeorge
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:45 pm
- Location: Woolwich, ON
- Contact:
-
Masterplan
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:00 am
-
Masterplan
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:00 am
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Despite massive profits, employer is demanding major concession
Which are?
Absolutely no facts in this besides stating that InBev is profitable.
“Concessions included a 20 per cent cut in medical and dental benefits, no medical benefits for all retirees going forward, and a removal of the no contracting out clause, to name a few.”
-
Rob Creighton
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:00 pm
- Location: Dundas, ON
And this is why you will see more and more local, small business'. If you are not going to get benefits anyway, you might as well be with a small company where you can try and build up to a decent benefit situation. Now, if we could only force all of our leaching government employees to accept what the average Canadian gets as benefits....yea, I know. Not going to happen.Masterplan wrote:“Concessions included a 20 per cent cut in medical and dental benefits, no medical benefits for all retirees going forward, and a removal of the no contracting out clause, to name a few.”
Nobody wants to give concessions ever, but the reality (in public service anyways...it would be no surprise to see this in the private sector as well) is that retiree benefits are under attack because of the liability cost associated with them.
"A good light beer is one that doesn't taste like piss!" - Frank d'Angelo
Sounds like they're being brought in line with the rest of the private sector....Masterplan wrote:MatttthewGeorge wrote:Despite massive profits, employer is demanding major concession
Which are?
Absolutely no facts in this besides stating that InBev is profitable.
“Concessions included a 20 per cent cut in medical and dental benefits, no medical benefits for all retirees going forward, and a removal of the no contracting out clause, to name a few.”
-
groulxsome
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:24 pm
I've been following this strike pretty closely since the start and, while I'm not in St. John's right now, I've been trying to gauge public opinions on it from online new articles and more congenial forums.
Part of the issue seems to me - outside of the union aspect - that Labatt just doesn't want to keep a marginal plant operating in Newfoundland when they could consolidate to other breweries within Canada. While InBev is profitable world wide, I doubt the margins on the St. John's brewery are really all that great. It's kinda a weird twist of fate that both Molson and Labatt even still have breweries there. I do not expect either to continue operating there for too much longer. While Newfoundlanders do drink more beer than most of Canada (looking at you Ontario) per-capata, with more import InBev products being listed (Leffe only came in around four years ago!), the need for locally brewed Coors seems less likely.
Anyway, it's better than the last big Labatt strick back in 1985 where Molson and Carling O’Keefe decided to show solidarity by locking out their unionized workers. Now that's anti-union behaviour and corporate collusion!
Part of the issue seems to me - outside of the union aspect - that Labatt just doesn't want to keep a marginal plant operating in Newfoundland when they could consolidate to other breweries within Canada. While InBev is profitable world wide, I doubt the margins on the St. John's brewery are really all that great. It's kinda a weird twist of fate that both Molson and Labatt even still have breweries there. I do not expect either to continue operating there for too much longer. While Newfoundlanders do drink more beer than most of Canada (looking at you Ontario) per-capata, with more import InBev products being listed (Leffe only came in around four years ago!), the need for locally brewed Coors seems less likely.
Anyway, it's better than the last big Labatt strick back in 1985 where Molson and Carling O’Keefe decided to show solidarity by locking out their unionized workers. Now that's anti-union behaviour and corporate collusion!
I don't know where to stand on these types of imposed concessions. On the one hand, such a company must, I would guess deal with runaway expections from a workforce and retirees living longer than ever, all of this perpetually snowballing the costs in ways the company may have never originally predicted. Plus the economics of business and the markets have just gotten... weird, as far as I can tell. Nothing it seems functions as it did 30 of 50 years ago.
On the other hand investors expect regular, increasing profits from companies they invest in, whether or not this is sustainable or helps build a livable country for decades to come. To aquiesce to this profit mandate, companies may swing a fairly broad axe sometimes and this can appear very abrupt and hostile to employees who don't see it coming and don't reckon it's necessary (though it may preserve the very company they work for.)
Am i off base here? It doesn't look black and white. It's the nature of unions to dig in their heels, not consider the company's position, and this creates a tug-of-war dynamic before companies even get started looking for concessions from a workforce that is then quite reasonably frightened to lose what they always simply believed they had coming. I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this - and/or the differences future companies in Canada will need to have to succeed.
On the other hand investors expect regular, increasing profits from companies they invest in, whether or not this is sustainable or helps build a livable country for decades to come. To aquiesce to this profit mandate, companies may swing a fairly broad axe sometimes and this can appear very abrupt and hostile to employees who don't see it coming and don't reckon it's necessary (though it may preserve the very company they work for.)
Am i off base here? It doesn't look black and white. It's the nature of unions to dig in their heels, not consider the company's position, and this creates a tug-of-war dynamic before companies even get started looking for concessions from a workforce that is then quite reasonably frightened to lose what they always simply believed they had coming. I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this - and/or the differences future companies in Canada will need to have to succeed.
In Beerum Veritas
I find it interesting that people are so surprised when employees or unions are resistant to giving up their previously agreed upon compensation. How many would be happy to show up to work and have their bosses say "I know when we hired you we said you'd get x+y+z but we decided that going forward we're only going to pay you x+y.
In most cases I think we should be asking why so many people do NOT get good benefits rather than asking why some groups get particularly good ones. You also can't cut $ and benefits from thousands of previously well paid workers and then turn around and complain that nobody is buying anything and the economy is not great.
In most cases I think we should be asking why so many people do NOT get good benefits rather than asking why some groups get particularly good ones. You also can't cut $ and benefits from thousands of previously well paid workers and then turn around and complain that nobody is buying anything and the economy is not great.
What JerCraigs said is prettymuch spot on. We've gone from a society that used to say "Hey, they get what? we should get that too!" to "they get what? Those no good commie bastards! My compenstation sucks so theirs should too!"
We've gone from wanting things to be better for ourselves to wanting things to be worse for others.
We've gone from wanting things to be better for ourselves to wanting things to be worse for others.
"A good light beer is one that doesn't taste like piss!" - Frank d'Angelo
-
MatttthewGeorge
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:45 pm
- Location: Woolwich, ON
- Contact: