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.

 

[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]

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.