Longshoreman Strike

[Darts]

"A proverb (from Latin: proverbium) is a simple, traditional saying that expresses a perceived truth based on common sense or experience."

Unions do say that a corporation's profits is all due to the "hard" work of the employees and when a corporation loses money it is all the fault of management.

Question: When have unions ever say that the profits of a corporation is due to the wisdom and hard work of management?

 

[explorerzip]

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...

Understanding and reading a contract are different things. Contracts are written in legalese to protect the employer from paying out severance amongst other things. Unless you have a lawyer with you every time you read a contract, you will have no idea if the employer is complying with labour laws or not. Most employers are doing the bare minimum to comply with labour laws. That's why employement lawyers exists. I'm intimitely familiar with the process as I was laid of a few months ago. Luckily, my lawyer was able to argue that the termination clause in my contract was unenforceable. That means I was owed a lot more severance than what my employer offered.

Where and how do you think these labour laws came from? Hint: they didn't appear out of thin air.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Where and how do you think these labour laws came from? Hint: they didn't appear out of thin air.

Both our generous statutory employment laws and our Canadian common law precedent developed as a result of Canada's post- war branch plant economy. It was always easy and attractive to require employers to pay through the nose for termination pay, or to adhere to strict employment practices, when most of that cost was being born by foreign held employers. After all, it kept some of their profits from leaving the country and underwrote part of our generous employment insurance benefits. We had the abundant natural resources America needed as well as a better educated workforce who also received more public benefits (health care, employment insurance) that these foreign employers didn't need to pay for through employment compensation. In that environment, foreign companies were prepared to pay a little more than they were used to for employment standards and common law reasonable notice obligations.

However, starting with Trudeau Sr., we've now chased most of these foreign interlopers out of our economy. Now, our expensive employment laws are being borne primarily by small businesses owned by Canadians, and by Canadian taxpayers who fund our ever expanding public sector.

So yes, there was a reason for the laws that have developed. However, we failed to adapt these laws when the underlying reasons for them disappeared, to the detriment of business development in Canada.

 

[richaceg]

Understanding and reading a contract are different things. Contracts are written in legalese to protect the employer from paying out severance amongst other things. Unless you have a lawyer with you every time you read a contract, you will have no idea if the employer is complying with labour laws or not. Most employers are doing the bare minimum to comply with labour laws. That's why employement lawyers exists. I'm intimitely familiar with the process as I was laid of a few months ago. Luckily, my lawyer was able to argue that the termination clause in my contract was unenforceable. That means I was owed a lot more severance than what my employer offered.

Where and how do you think these labour laws came from? Hint: they didn't appear out of thin air.

Of course they didn't what makes you think that's what i'm thinking? good for you for getting employment lawyer...you said it yourself, employers doing the bare minimum isn't out of the norm....they don't break any laws....and if they do, it's usually a settlement (if you have a good lawyer who can see through it) now does every employer do it? we don't know...in the case of metro...this is pretty much a negotiation that went sideways....a few weeks ago, they were gonna come to terms don't know what happened this time.

 

[JohnLarue]

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?

you have confused yourself
raising prices in lock step with cost increases will result in higher (record ) profits for any profitable company

their margins remained constant

look at it this way
$100 basket of groceries
net profit $3.60
net profit margin 3.6%

inflation drives up costs 10%
$110 for the same basket of groceries
net profit $3.60 x 1.10 = $ 3.96 >> New record profits
net profit margin 3.6%

take some finance / economic/ commerce courses

 

[Dutch Oven]

you have confused yourself
raising prices in lock step with cost increases will result in higher (record ) profits for any profitable company

their margins remained constant

look at it this way
$100 basket of groceries
net profit $3.60
net profit margin 3.6%

inflation drives up costs 10%
$110 for the same basket of groceries
net profit $3.60 x 1.10 = $ 3.96 >> New record profits
net profit margin 3.6%

take some finance / economic/ commerce courses

He needs to start with a remedial math course.

 

[explorerzip]

Of course they didn't what makes you think that's what i'm thinking? good for you for getting employment lawyer...you said it yourself, employers doing the bare minimum isn't out of the norm....they don't break any laws....and if they do, it's usually a settlement (if you have a good lawyer who can see through it) now does every employer do it? we don't know...in the case of metro...this is pretty much a negotiation that went sideways....a few weeks ago, they were gonna come to terms don't know what happened this time.

You have a few different ideas in one sentence so I'm not totally sure what you mean.

The reason I brought up labour laws and lawyers was in response to your earlier point: "If the corporation broke some laws...then charge them...if they're following guidelines, wage etc etc....these employees know this when they applied..." How exactly is a employee going to know how a company's policies affect them before working there?

 

[richaceg]

You have a few different ideas in one sentence so I'm not totally sure what you mean.

The reason I brought up labour laws and lawyers was in response to your earlier point: "If the corporation broke some laws...then charge them...if they're following guidelines, wage etc etc....these employees know this when they applied..." How exactly is a employee going to know how a company's policies affect them before working there?

What kind of policies are you looking for? When you apply for work, you have a paper you sign that indicates your wage. You are also walked through by HR what kind of benefits available, profit sharing etc etc...you do your hours, you get paid, anything beyond the norm that affects your life that you feel you have to do for added compensation but you're not getting any, look for another job...you brought up labour laws on a topic that doesn't need one...

 

[explorerzip]

What kind of policies are you looking for? When you apply for work, you have a paper you sign that indicates your wage. You are also walked through by HR what kind of benefits available, profit sharing etc etc...you do your hours, you get paid, anything beyond the norm that affects your life that you feel you have to do for added compensation but you're not getting any, look for another job...you brought up labour laws on a topic that doesn't need one...

You seem to suggest that people should know that comapnies are breaking laws and if they're following guidelines BEFORE they apply. Short of a public outcry, how would someone know this information?

HR does walk you through the benefits, profit sharing, etc. but they always skim over how and why you can be terminated and how much severance they owe you. At least, that's been my experience.

Why shouldn't I talk about labour laws? I understand that we're talking about unionized workers that have a different process, but they still have protections.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Looks like they are close to a deal. We’ll see how the members vote now…

B.C. port strike: Workers to be briefed on deal ahead of vote | Globalnews.ca

Labour observers are urging caution ahead of the vote, saying there's a history of union members rejecting deals struck at the negotiating table.

globalnews.ca

 

[bazokajoe]

you have confused yourself
raising prices in lock step with cost increases will result in higher (record ) profits for any profitable company

their margins remained constant

look at it this way
$100 basket of groceries
net profit $3.60
net profit margin 3.6%

inflation drives up costs 10%
$110 for the same basket of groceries
net profit $3.60 x 1.10 = $ 3.96 >> New record profits
net profit margin 3.6%

take some finance / economic/ commerce courses

He doesn't get. He never will.
Time to give up.

 

[DinkleMouse]

He doesn't get. He never will.
Time to give up.

I get it, it's just irrelevant.

The company made $849 million last year. Whatever the profit margins are, they still have the $8 million spare cash flow to give workers a reasonable wage.

All you pro-corporate types have yet to explain why Metro can't survive on $840 million a year on profits instead of $850 million a year. You keep saying they'll need to raise prices if they give workers a raise, and yet very basic math demonstrates that they don't. You keep saying I need a basic math course, and yet you're the ones missing the point that employees wages can come out of profits, and Metro will still break records for profit.

Not only is the profit margin irrelevant, is also untrue that the margins have remained fix. In the last year they've gone from 3.8% to 4.8% according to Metro. The increase in wages will cost a fraction of a percent of the profit margin, so they'll still be up. Before the pandemic, they were at 3.9%. And while it's gone up and down slightly, they're still making sufficient profits that they can afford the wage increase.

Clowns are acting like profit margins can never change or the whole system will collapse, but it literally fluctuates constantly. It's in non-stop flux.

You don't want corporations to take any hit at all, but you're perfectly happy for the workers to make less and less and less every year. Why? Not a single one of you has said why you think corporate profits are more important than workers. You've said "But investors and RRSPs". But that doesn't say why they're more important than workers. Why are CEO bonuses, investors, etc so important that they can't give up 1% of their almost $850 million profits to support workers? They're not going bankrupt, they're just making 1% less profit. The dividend continues, the bonuses keep following, the value of portfolios keep going up. But instead of going up 11%, they go up 10%. Why do you want to sacrifice worker wages for that?

I'm familiar with ROI, ROE, ROC, etc. I'm familiar with profit margins. But none of that is relevant to whether Metro has the cash flow to cover a decent wage increase for its workers. That's the point.

 

[richaceg]

I get it, it's just irrelevant.

The company made $849 million last year. Whatever the profit margins are, they still have the $8 million spare cash flow to give workers a reasonable wage.

All you pro-corporate types have yet to explain why Metro can't survive on $840 million a year on profits instead of $850 million a year. You keep saying they'll need to raise prices if they give workers a raise, and yet very basic math demonstrates that they don't. You keep saying I need a basic math course, and yet you're the ones missing the point that employees wages can come out of profits, and Metro will still break records for profit.

Not only is the profit margin irrelevant, is also untrue that the margins have remained fix. In the last year they've gone from 3.8% to 4.8% according to Metro. The increase in wages will cost a fraction of a percent of the profit margin, so they'll still be up. Before the pandemic, they were at 3.9%. And while it's gone up and down slightly, they're still making sufficient profits that they can afford the wage increase.

Clowns are acting like profit margins can never change or the whole system will collapse, but it literally fluctuates constantly. It's in non-stop flux.

You don't want corporations to take any hit at all, but you're perfectly happy for the workers to make less and less and less every year. Why? Not a single one of you has said why you think corporate profits are more important than workers. You've said "But investors and RRSPs". But that doesn't say why they're more important than workers. Why are CEO bonuses, investors, etc so important that they can't give up 1% of their almost $850 million profits to support workers? They're not going bankrupt, they're just making 1% less profit. The dividend continues, the bonuses keep following, the value of portfolios keep going up. But instead of going up 11%, they go up 10%. Why do you want to sacrifice worker wages for that?

I'm familiar with ROI, ROE, ROC, etc. I'm familiar with profit margins. But none of that is relevant to whether Metro has the cash flow to cover a decent wage increase for its workers. That's the point.

What you don't get is that a company cannot simply throw money at employees just because of "record breaking profit" it doesn't work like that...most metro employees are paid above minimum...most minimum wage earners at metro are newly hired. the negotiation will come down to benefits or maybe a few dollars...do you really believe giving out 1600 per employee will go well with the board, shareholders or the company itself?

 

[Darts]

Question: Would the employees be willing to take a pay cut if Metro were losing money?

 

[Frankfooter]

Question: Would the employees be willing to take a pay cut if Metro were losing money?

Not if they still needed to use the food bank to get by.
Metro is raking in the profit but they need people to be able to afford their groceries to exist.

The divide between rich and poor is why there are people in tents in parks, a company with record profits can afford to pay a living wage.

 

[bazokajoe]

Question: Would the employees be willing to take a pay cut if Metro were losing money?

Nope.

 

[JohnLarue]

[QUOTE="DinkleMouse, post: 8033212, member: 325009"I get it, it's just irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

no you do not get it

The company made $849 million last year. Whatever the profit margins are, they still have the $8 million spare cash flow to give workers a reasonable wage.

there is no such thing as spare cash
try running a business & you will find out quickly there are a never ending list of uses / claims for all the cash

All you pro-corporate types have yet to explain why Metro can't survive on $840 million a year on profits instead of $850 million a year.

the objective is not just survive
the objective is to meet customer demand & provide the shareholders with a return on investment, while ensuring the long term viability of the business

managers who do not control costs get replaced

You keep saying they'll need to raise prices if they give workers a raise, and yet very basic math demonstrates that they don't. You keep saying I need a basic math course,

if all businesses immunized their work force against inflation it will become hyperinflation

and yet you're the ones missing the point that employees wages can come out of profits, and Metro will still break records for profit.

Actually employees wages comes out of cash flow i bet you do not know the difference between accounting profit & cash flow
your argument would have merit if employees were to forgo compensation when companies post an accounting loss

Not only is the profit margin irrelevant,

you could not be more wrong

is also untrue that the margins have remained fix. In the last year they've gone from 3.8% to 4.8% according to Metro. The increase in wages will cost a fraction of a percent of the profit margin, so they'll still be up. Before the pandemic, they were at 3.9%. And while it's gone up and down slightly, they're still making sufficient profits that they can afford the wage increase.

Profit at grocery chain Metro increases 10%, mostly on higher pharmacy sales | CBC News

"For the year to date, food margins have declined, mainly due to higher cost of sales, partly offset by higher margins in pharmacy," the chain said.

metro invested $4.5 Billion to acquire the Jean Coutu pharmacy chain for the very reason described (higher margins)
it likely spent another 0.5 billion integrating / promoting the pharmacy
And you are stating striking unionized employees should get first call on the return on investment ???

you need to take some business courses , however I suspect the die is cast and you will never understand

Clowns are acting like profit margins can never change or the whole system will collapse, but it literally fluctuates constantly. It's in non-stop flux.

of course it (profit margins) is in flux and there will be times when it shrinks
unionized compensation, however does not decrease

compensation is determined by the value provide, not by profits
if the unions want a slice of profits, they should ask for shares in lieu of some proportion of cash

You don't want corporations to take any hit at all, but you're perfectly happy for the workers to make less and less and less every year. Why? Not a single one of you has said why you think corporate profits are more important than workers. You've said "But investors and RRSPs". But that doesn't say why they're more important than workers.

compensation is determined by the value provided & the responsibilities assumed
low skilled employees do not add much value
low skilled employees can be replaced

again you seem very confused why the business was started in the first place.
it was certainly not to provide a strike target for unions

Why are CEO bonuses, investors, etc so important that they can't give up 1% of their almost $850 million profits to support workers? They're not going bankrupt, they're just making 1% less profit. The dividend continues, the bonuses keep following, the value of portfolios keep going up. But instead of going up 11%, they go up 10%. Why do you want to sacrifice worker wages for that?

for the same reasons why not just give up the $850 million profits to support Canadian consumers ?
the consumer does not strike and shut down operations
And the business was started to meet consumer demand

I'm familiar with ROI, ROE, ROC, etc. I'm familiar with profit margins. But none of that is relevant to whether Metro has the cash flow to cover a decent wage increase for its workers. That's the point.

you really need to learn these fundamental realities
no private sector company will promise to immunize its work force from inflation
no private sector company will promise its work force a certain standard of living

it can not control inflation and it can not control the cost of a certain standard of living
do not promise what you can not control

compensation is determined by the value provided & the responsibilities assumed
low skilled employees do not add much value
low skilled employees can be replaced

 

[explorerzip]

Question: Would the employees be willing to take a pay cut if Metro were losing money?

Would the CEO who's also an employee be willing to take a pay cut or forego bonuses if Metro was losing money? The current one didn't start or invest anything into the company and therefore has no "skin in the game." If Metro goes bankrupt under his watch he'll be walking with tens of millions in severance and benefits.

 

[Darts]

Would the CEO who's also an employee be willing to take a pay cut or forego bonuses if Metro was losing money?

Maybe not Metro but some CEO's have been known to take pay cuts and/or forgo bonuses during down years plus their stock options also took a hit.
CEOs take pay cuts after brutal 2022 | CNN Business

 

[explorerzip]

Maybe not Metro but some CEO's have been known to take pay cuts and/or forgo bonuses during down years plus their stock options also took a hit.
CEOs take pay cuts after brutal 2022 | CNN Business

Good on those CEO's, but there are plenty that don't take pay cuts during bad years or even when the company goes bankrupt. Remember Target? Do you think Bob Iger from Disney is taking a pay cut while the WGA and SAG are on strike or during the company's tough times?