Still haven't answered the question. I'm giving up on you. Clearly you can't answer it. Which is extra ridiculous given its just asking you to justify your own opinion.
Longshoreman Strike
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
the right choice of cashier will get the job done (although they no longer bag your groceries for you -WTF?? )
the wrong choice of cashier will become self evident very quickly and may cost the company approx. $1,000 to $2,000 (managements time to interview 7 train as well as admin cost to onboard & then terminate)
the right choice of CEO can drive market share increases , operational productivity increases, a better experience for the customer, expanded employment opportunities & increased shareholder returns.
the wrong choice of CEO can drive market share loses , operational productivity decreases, a worst experience for the customer,
comparing line workers compensation vs executive compensation is ridiculous and just highlights the lack of tangible rationale for low skilled compensation demands
Do you honestly think that most people fully understand what's in their employment contract before and during their employment?
I've still got you blocked but I was curious what you were saying. Still nonsense.
Metro's CEO makes $5.4 million. The average worker is $16.46. I'm advocating both should get inflation. So I'm saying the CEO should get a $300k raise, and the workers should get a $2k raise.
Tell me how I'm being ridiculous and undervaluing the CEO.
I think you and Dutch Oven made the same mistake of rushing to criticize before you actually did the math.
So much food I might add for thought….
people harping about corporate greed, not understanding that CEOs answer to the board. The board answers to shareholders. That’s means all you guys. Who freak out when your pensions/RSPs don’t grow by 5-10%….
people harping about what others want /get. Aka why should they get inflation…why should the minimum be higher. Etc. or they will just lose it to inflation anyways…Not grasping they are talking themselves out of their own raises…
People harping about a companies profit. Not grasping the concepts behind RoI and RoC. I bet every single one of you, would risk $100 for a $2 profit, for illustration. By all means let’s find something to bet on. You put $100 on the table. If your right, I’ll give you $2
people harping about corporate greed, not understanding that CEOs answer to the board. The board answers to shareholders. That’s means all you guys. Who freak out when your pensions/RSPs don’t grow by 5-10%….
people harping about what others want /get. Aka why should they get inflation…why should the minimum be higher. Etc. or they will just lose it to inflation anyways…Not grasping they are talking themselves out of their own raises…
People harping about a companies profit. Not grasping the concepts behind RoI and RoC. I bet every single one of you, would risk $100 for a $2 profit, for illustration. By all means let’s find something to bet on. You put $100 on the table. If your right, I’ll give you $2
"Basic math failure" says the guy who didn't do the math.Let's do it now, shall we?
Number of striking workers: 3700
Average wage of striking workers: $16.46/hr
Inflation last year: 6.5%
Let's assume every worker is full time. They aren't, but this will get us the maximum it could cost Metro.
6% of $16.46 is 97¢. Let's round that to a dollar. 40 hours per week with 52 weeks in a year is 2080 hours. At an extra $1/hr that's an extra $2080/employee. Times 3700 employees, that's just shy of $7.7 million dollars.
Nope, your right. That's a huge number. No way Metro can afford that, can they? Let's check...
In Q1 of 2023, Metro made a profit of $218 million. In a quarter. Last year, they made $849 million.
So were you right? Did I fail basic math by suggesting Metro could survive on a measly $841 million in profits? $841 million in profits is too small in your mind?
Maybe next time do the math before you rush to try and make a point if you don't want to look foolish.
The CEO got a 6.8% raise, for the record. And a share of $13 million in bonuses. It would cost them half of what they gave 5 people in bonuses to give standard of living stability to 3700 people. And you clowns try to defend the 5.
what a foolish argument
no private sector employer will ever promise to immunize its work force against inflation
just as no employer will promise a certain standard of living for its employees
again comparing a line worker to the CEO is a ridiculous ratio
in the case of lobaws the CEOs family has invested risk capital into the business
the line worker has not
the cashier is free to explore what ever compensation his / her skill set can command in the market place
News reported full time workers get paid between 20-25$/hour + benefits and pension plan. . Once again pretty good for unskilled labour."Basic math failure" says the guy who didn't do the math.
Number of striking workers: 3700
Average wage of striking workers: $16.46/hr
Inflation last year: 6.5%
Let's assume every worker is full time. They aren't, but this will get us the maximum it could cost Metro.
6% of $16.46 is 97¢. Let's round that to a dollar. 40 hours per week with 52 weeks in a year is 2080 hours. At an extra $1/hr that's an extra $2080/employee. Times 3700 employees, that's just shy of $7.7 million dollars.
Nope, your right. That's a huge number. No way Metro can afford that, can they? Let's check...
In Q1 of 2023, Metro made a profit of $218 million. In a quarter. Last year, they made $849 million.
So were you right? Did I fail basic math by suggesting Metro could survive on a measly $841 million in profits? $841 million in profits is too small in your mind?
Maybe next time do the math before you rush to try and make a point if you don't want to look foolish.
The CEO got a 6.8% raise, for the record. And a share of $13 million in bonuses. It would cost them half of what they gave 5 people in bonuses to give standard of living stability to 3700 people. And you clowns try to defend the 5.
Edit: I used 6% instead of 6.5%. it's $1.07/hr, which is $2225.60/yr/employee, or $8.2 million/year. But somehow I think Metro can still get by on 840 million per year.
Do they deserve a raise? Sure. Equal with inflation, no.
The math I presented to you was simple and accurate. You haven't directly challenged any of the propositions I put forward, because you can't. You pretend to analyze numbers but you are either just confusing yourself or attempting to obfuscate. I could pick your analysis apart piece by piece, but that would be a waste of time considering you haven't directly rebutted what I said. Your opinions about "what is enough profit" miss the point entirely, and require no response. So too your opinions about "survival" of the company. If you ever wonder why you were a worker rather than an executive in these companies you like to criticize, simply review the quality of your analysis set out in this thread."Basic math failure" says the guy who didn't do the math.
Number of striking workers: 3700
Average wage of striking workers: $16.46/hr
Inflation last year: 6.5%
Let's assume every worker is full time. They aren't, but this will get us the maximum it could cost Metro.
6% of $16.46 is 97¢. Let's round that to a dollar. 40 hours per week with 52 weeks in a year is 2080 hours. At an extra $1/hr that's an extra $2080/employee. Times 3700 employees, that's just shy of $7.7 million dollars.
Nope, your right. That's a huge number. No way Metro can afford that, can they? Let's check...
In Q1 of 2023, Metro made a profit of $218 million. In a quarter. Last year, they made $849 million.
So were you right? Did I fail basic math by suggesting Metro could survive on a measly $841 million in profits? $841 million in profits is too small in your mind?
Maybe next time do the math before you rush to try and make a point if you don't want to look foolish.
The CEO got a 6.8% raise, for the record. And a share of $13 million in bonuses. It would cost them half of what they gave 5 people in bonuses to give standard of living stability to 3700 people. And you clowns try to defend the 5.
Edit: I used 6% instead of 6.5%. it's $1.07/hr, which is $2225.60/yr/employee, or $8.2 million/year. But somehow I think Metro can still get by on 840 million per year.
and this is where you are wrong
no private sector employer will ever promise to immunize its work force against inflation
just as no employer will promise a certain standard of living for its employees
if every company immunzed its work force against inflation, inflation would become perpetual (or hyper -inflation) and business failure / layoffs would sky rocket
your problem is your ideology tells you what the utopian outcome should be without thinking about the knock on effects of your desired outcome
you also seem very confused about relative order of stakeholders
the business exists to meet customer demand and generate a return on investment for shareholders
it does not exist to immunize its work force against inflation or guarantee a certain standard of living to low skill employees
a 3.6% net profit margin is very thin and can easily be eroded by a lot of operating costs, energy, spoilage, rent etc
no he does not
taking an adversarial view of a business because it is managed to generate a profit is his first mistake
his second mistake is not recognizing the profit margins have not expanded
his third mistake is thinking low skilled employees with zero skin in the game (no assumption of risk) somehow have a claim on profits
Last edited:
Feel free to explain, but I did the math that shows a fair wage increase would account for less than 1% of profits. Not revenue, profits. Can you tell me why that's not affordable?
Edit: for the record, I'm aware businesses don't operate this way. They don't give employees fair raises even when it's perfectly feasible to do so. I'm arguing that they should.
Last edited:
I used the number given by Metro. I assumed Metro knows what it's paying it's workers. Likewise I used profits given by Metro. I also find they know how much they make.
But why not equal with inflation?
My math was also simple and accurate. Are you really saying Metro can't afford to make $840 million in profits rather than $850 million in profits? I'm not going to rebut what you said because clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. You were even going on about Loblaws instead of Metro. And your entire point was irrelevant. You were going about "if they increase profit margins and then give it all to workers it's only 1.3%!" but my whole point is they don't need to increase profit margins they already make enough to pay it with 1% of their profits. And given that profits have increased almost 11%, that's still almost a 10% increase that the corporation gets to keep. This isn't rocket science.
I never once used the phrase "what is enough profit". There can be $80 billion in profit and I'd still be arguing that the workers should get inflation. If they made $3 million in profit, that might be a different story. But they didn't.
If they can afford to give 5 guys $13 million after causing this ridiculous inflation we have, they can afford to give 3700 people $8 million. It really is simple math as much as you try to pretend it's complicated.
I'll just shove you back on ignore though. People who say "I'm not going to explain" are a waste of time. I don't waste my time on people who won't discuss in good faith. If you could educate , you should. If you're just going to insult, belittle, and demean, I've got no time for you. It's really that simple.
Last edited:
whether you read it or not is on you. it's 1 piece of paper actually if you're getting an increase...when I used to work at home depot, everytime i get an increase, they let me sign it...and i read it everytime. it was a nice gig back then and i get profit sharing etc etc and i read it all...
You cut off the argument to...."Corporate greed because they jacked up the prices during covid but employee compensation didn't" is such a stupid argument in itself...I work for manufacturing...the cost of products didn't stay the same....all operational costs to ship the products to every store went up etc etc...if you are only looking at sales...that's not profit...that's just sales and it went up because prices went up relative to it...there are a lot more factors you can put in to it....if you pay attention to your Economics 101 course...
If they had raised prices lock step with the cost of their own supplies going up, their profits would've stayed the same. But they didn't. Record profits, remember? The number I quoted wasn't Metro's posted income from which you need to deduct expenses and operating costs. They reported almost $850 million on PROFIT. So yes, that is profit. I literally said it was profit. You could've looked it up and seen it was profit.
But no. Instead you're just to sling insults and imply I'm an idiot who doesn't understand economics. I certainly do understand it. Which is why when a corporation says, "We made $850 million on profits" in their annual report, I don't assume that's sales. Because sales is reported in a different place, and they don't call it "profit".
But you still haven't answered the question. You've had enough chances. You can't answer, you only insult. Ignored.
Last edited:
Look who's talking...check your replies, you insinuated my posts were "idiotic" and get the same treatment....don't dish what you can't handle....
Metro made almost $850 million in profits last year. But they sell staple goods. People need these to survive and they gouged during a pandemic. My portfolio (and my pension's) is diversified enough that we don't rely on grocery stores gouging people on bread and milk to turn a profit.
Also, they increased profits almost 11% and it would cost less than 1% of profits to give them workers a decent raise. I'm pretty share the shareholders can manage with $840 million in profits rather than $850 million in profits.
Wage-push isn't a direct correlation. Multiple studies have found wage push has a minimal impact on inflation. Increasing the minimum wage, which affects for more people than 3700, showed that for every 10% increase in wages, you get 0.36% increase in inflation. Meaning giving 3700 workers 6.3% would be minimal. Any even if everyone got inflation, wage push would still be a smaller factor that profiteering and government spending.
Since you were already ignoring the points I made to you, it really makes no difference.
