Canada Post

[ziggy]

Snail mail is dead. Remember when everyone sent out batches of Christmas cards. Did you do it this year? Remember when your bank mailed you a statement every month? I just got through talking to my bank because that statement will now cost $2, or I can get it online for free. We can't live in the past regardless of which government is in power. Want to find someone to blame, ask yourself how many letters you write as opposed to emails you sent.

 

[terrin]

Good points GLG. Thats exactly what they did to BC Rail all good paying BC Jobs flushed to make a few wealthy corporate execs even more wealthy. Bottom line is BC Rail was making money as is still the case with Canada Post. Its a slippery slope you say you don't need this or that until it's a public service you relied on then you think well wait a minute that one should stay. Just think of the Hospitals when you visit your sick loved ones and you watch the cleaning staff work with a mop from the toilet outwords. The government (WE) still pays the same or more for this service to a Private Contractor who pays employees low wages and few benefits and pockets all the rest. Ya a Janitor is just a Janitor but if you paid them a living wage they will tend to stay learn about best practices(for sick patients) etc. vs a steady turnover in low wage staff moving along to better paying jobs. Is this what we call progress?

 

[SophiaB]

The British experiment will be worth watching.... that's for pointing that out.

But...
This is not about profit or loss, if it were then how would you explain this

reading...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle15981676/

you just need to look at the Con's play book to see
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/display.aspx?id=10843

All I can say is you should take their advice....


Not so good if you work for that company but if you had the money and connections to get in on the shares you could make a tidy profit.... and that is the whole point... transferring the profits from the public to the private sector.

Looks to me that since they changed out all the directors and top staff from the past government appointees to the new government appointees we are being set up to privatize. Manufacture a case through moves to lose money and then the only solution is to sell to the highest bidder. (can anyone see BC Hydro doing this?)

If you do read the PDF notice that they use the case of Cameco and it's success. Well those folks are in hot water with CRA for off-shoring the profits and taxes. Who got cheated???? People of Sask who owned the resource. It's a heck of a scam and without going to deep... 100's of millions of dollars have been cheated from the public from lost royalties and taxes. Will see how the court case goes or if it gets swept under the carpet.

Another big problem is that monopolies are not well suited to private control. That's why you set them up as a crown corporation. You need the public over-site to make sure they don't cook the books. Does this public over-site work? Well sometimes when the public is looking and thinking but lately people refuse to think and they let others think for them..... Or just let the flavor of the day sound byte be their guide to what's right or wrong in business.

Personally I could not care one way or another if I had to pickup my own mail.
As others have pointed out it's just junk mail anyway.
Even though they do make a tidy profit from that junk mail.
But hey just another nail in the coffin of the middle class....

Won't effect me..... just pointing it out....

Who will be next???? My guess is the Mint.... They have been very profitable for the government and I could see these Con's eying that profit for the Base ...... Nothing could go wrong... right?
(just a joke as I don't think printing money would go well as a private corporation)

GLG
Trained in business but lately questioning what I learned against what I see.
It's not adding up.....

Why shouldn't the shareholders make the money? If they take all the risk and headaches of struggling/shrinking government business, they should re-app the benefits if they turn it around, no? IMO there is a lot more "shady business" going on within companies held by the public/government, than in privatized business

 

[trophywife]

Why shouldn't the shareholders make the money? If they take all the risk and headaches of struggling/shrinking government business, they should re-app the benefits if they turn it around, no? IMO there is a lot more "shady business" going on within companies held by the public/government, than in privatized business

much a greed...

 

[SophiaB]

Shareholders often seem to have no moral conscience or accountability.

The number one game for shareholders nowadays is:- "I want as much as I can get and you (the public) can go ph**ck yourselves.

Jobs lost? Too bad.
Local economy screwed? Too bad.
Inferior products? Too bad.
Colossal markups on goods made in sweat shops by the dis-enfranchised working 16 hours a day? Too bad.
Ethical accountability? Too bad.

Head shake yes please.

 

[bigbruce]

Shareholders often seem to have no moral conscience or accountability.

The number one game for shareholders nowadays is:- "I want as much as I can get and you (the public) can go ph**ck yourselves.

Jobs lost? Too bad.
Local economy screwed? Too bad.
Inferior products? Too bad.
Colossal markups on goods made in sweat shops by the dis-enfranchised working 16 hours a day? Too bad.
Ethical accountability? Too bad.

Spoken like someone who has no pension plan (other than a Government plan) or RRSP's - or any other kind of investment outside of a bank account or money in a mattress.
Those of us with RRSP's and private pension plans know very well what being a shareholder is all about.

 

[seadna]

Shareholders often seem to have no moral conscience or accountability.

The number one game for shareholders nowadays is:- "I want as much as I can get and you (the public) can go ph**ck yourselves.

Jobs lost? Too bad.
Local economy screwed? Too bad.
Inferior products? Too bad.
Colossal markups on goods made in sweat shops by the dis-enfranchised working 16 hours a day? Too bad.
Ethical accountability? Too bad.

I think that's a little harsh and unrealistic. Often shareholders (on an individual basis) have little power over the actions of the corporations. In addition, a hell of a lot of money is invested in mutual funds where the fund shareholder is even farther removed from control over the corporation. In the end, it is the officers and directors of the corporations that must be ethical OR (and in practice this may be better) HEAVILY regulated. Much of the problem in my opinion stems from the all to common situation in which the officers and directors are rewarded for short term gain over long term gain. Ethically run companies often generate more return on investment over the long term since unethical decisions often come back to haunt the company's bottom line.

 

[bigbruce]

Close, Seadna, but not quite. While senior management in most companies are have incentives in their compensation plans regarding short term financial performance, they also generally have a substantial portion of their compensation packages in the form of stock options. Most plans are structured so that the options cannot be exercised for some longer period of time. For example, if a CEO granted options today might not be able to exercise the options for at least 5 years. For the options to have value, then, the senior management team must be focussed on the long term financial health of the company to ensure the stock prices increase over time. If stock prices fall below the price of the stock when the options are granted, they have no value and the executives are not able to realize that portion of their compensation package. This is the way companies are able to ensure executives are looking at both the long and the short term financial performance of the company, thereby keeping their and their shareholders interests aligned.
When you look at the "Top CEO Salary List" you will see a column related to the amount of compensation the CEO received as a result of the exercise of his/her stock options. This is his/her reward for ensuring the longer term viability of the Company. You can safely assume that if a CEO has done well with stock options, the individual shareholders of the Company - including those whose mutual funds hold the Company's shares - have done very well too.

 

[pescador]

Most major companies/banks in Canada have deferred payment incentives in place that vest over 3 plus years. After 2008 there was a significant shift in compensation programs globally driven by both legislation and industry pressures. If performance isn't sustained, payments can be reduced, or, in some cases may be zero. You will see that most exec comp is 10% salary and 90% variable incentive (I'm talking the top ceo roles). That means that business's of this scale need to perform well over the medium and short term. That can't be a bad thing for anyone. I don't know why we Canadians have such an inferiority complex about people making big $$$. Thats the way Western civilization runs. Most of us are shareholders in some way whether you realize it or not. Most pension funds hold large equity positions in blue chip companies. Mind do. I suspect that even CPP and OAS hold equities. Just one mans view.

 

[terrin]

I don't know why we Canadians have such an inferiority complex about people making big $$$. Thats the way Western civilization runs. Most of us are shareholders in some way whether you realize it or not. Most pension funds hold large equity positions in blue chip companies. Mind do. I suspect that even CPP and OAS hold equities. Just one mans view.[/QUOTE]
The "people making big $$$ " also made big bets to make bigger $$$ then when it turned into a bad decision instead of crashing and burning like you or I would if we made a bad bet they were deemed too big to fail and we the taxpayer had to bail them out. It's something we are still paying for especially Pension Funds and folks who saved their money in Term Dposits via the political decision to keep interest rates artificially low for an extended period of time. Most Pension Funds don't go for home runs i.e. big $$$ and usually have a significant portion of assets in bonds and are required to do solvency tests all of which have created unfounded liabilities in many pension plans.

 

[GLG]

Why shouldn't the shareholders make the money? If they take all the risk and headaches of struggling/shrinking government business, they should re-app the benefits if they turn it around, no? IMO there is a lot more "shady business" going on within companies held by the public/government, than in privatized business

Why should the public shareholder lose all their money? We were the ones that put all the money into making the thing work in the first place. The public has a lot invested in this company and if the plan is to sell it off at 10 cents on the dollar so "friends" can turn it around and make a killing...... yea that's not right. Yup setup the company books drive into the ground then sell cheap to your buddies... And the kicker is there is no competition in the market so you know it's a good investment. (just like the Fraser guy's suggest) Great if you have the dough to get in early but in the public interest? Nope.

I have never worked in public service or any union but have seen my fair share of large and small companies. Seen some wacky things in large companies. As an example why is head office on some small island in banana land? Could it be to avoid the tax man? Have you ever seen a crown corporation with off-shore head office? Nope that would not fly but you sure see some of the biggest companies do it. Perfectly legal if you have the best accountants money can buy.

Is there some problems at the Canada Post? You bet but it's not the way the boots on the ground are working. My reading of the financial statements are the real problem is the pensions. Maybe others could comment. I see this home deliver as more of a red herring. We are being setup up. Seen it before as others have pointed out.
Hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with the newspaper article that this is smoke and mirrors.

Any way it's great to see others post on this thread and get a different perspective from them.

Big $$$ like hockey players...... now that's a crime.
I have no problem paying CEO's large money as long as it's not more then hockey players (joke)
Sad if you think about it.

 

[bigbruce]

You're making two rather large assumptions here, GLG. The first is that there is a plan to "sell off" Canada Post - and the second is that such a sale would be at "10cents on the dollar". I haven't seen anything, other than media speculation and public hysteria, that suggests either scenario. Canada Post is a crown corp that has performed reasonably well over the past number of years. Their recent decision to end home delivery for the third of the market that still has this service seems entirely reasonable (to me at least) given the clear declining trend in the use of snail mail. Improving the efficiency of handling what mail will continue to exist seems to be a prudent business decision that will hopefully ensure Canada Post will continue to remain viable - and able to pay those pensions.
As for the hockey players, it's really not all that complicated - as long as the fan chumps keep paying the big bucks to watch the games the players are guaranteed to make more money. Quite a simple equation, really. People stop paying the ridiculous ticket prices and/or stop watching the games on TV, and the gravy train will come to a grinding halt.

 

[SophiaB]

Why should the public shareholder lose all their money? We were the ones that put all the money into making the thing work in the first place. The public has a lot invested in this company and if the plan is to sell it off at 10 cents on the dollar so "friends" can turn it around and make a killing...... yea that's not right. Yup setup the company books drive into the ground then sell cheap to your buddies... And the kicker is there is no competition in the market so you know it's a good investment. (just like the Fraser guy's suggest) Great if you have the dough to get in early but in the public interest? Nope.

I have seen nothing like this or heard of anything like this? Sounds like a pretty big conspiracy I think. All I see is jobs that are useless and not required being eliminated. Sounds like a sound business move from where I stand.

I have never worked in public service or any union but have seen my fair share of large and small companies. Seen some wacky things in large companies. As an example why is head office on some small island in banana land? Could it be to avoid the tax man? Have you ever seen a crown corporation with off-shore head office? Nope that would not fly but you sure see some of the biggest companies do it. Perfectly legal if you have the best accountants money can buy.

Do you have any examples of Large companies with head offices on banana island? I know this exists, but I don't see a problem with it. Maybe if corporations weren't raped so bad this wouldn't happen. My company paid over 40% of our net earnings to income tax last year. This is on top of pst on all purchases. When is enough enough? That's the thank you we get from the government for working our asses off, risking and sacrificing everything and employing 30 people.

Is there some problems at the Canada Post? You bet but it's not the way the boots on the ground are working. My reading of the financial statements are the real problem is the pensions. Maybe others could comment. I see this home deliver as more of a red herring. We are being setup up. Seen it before as others have pointed out.
Hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with the newspaper article that this is smoke and mirrors.

Pensions within government organizations are always a problem, and as the demographic gets older this is something my generation is/ will have to take on the burden of. However, What we are talking about is eliminating jobs that are not required. And that is a good thing for everyone involved except for the people doing those jobs obviously. But the Corp, and the tax payer both win in that move.

 

[Gunsmith]

Canada Steamship Lines.

 

[GLG]

Do you have any examples of Large companies with head offices on banana island? I know this exists, but I don't see a problem with it. Maybe if corporations weren't raped so bad this wouldn't happen. My company paid over 40% of our net earnings to income tax last year. This is on top of pst on all purchases. When is enough enough? That's the thank you we get from the government for working our asses off, risking and sacrificing everything and employing 30 people.

Good question... yes I do but it's not Banana land but Switzerland... you can read about it here
Ottawa accuses Cameco of multi-million dollar tax dodge


Saskatchewan may have missed out on $300M in corporate tax


One of the largest companies in Saskatchewan is in the midst of a multi-million dollar tax court battle with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).Cameco has publicly estimated that it could end up owing $800-850 million in Canadian corporate taxes for the years 2008 to 2012, if it loses the case. CRA contends that the uranium giant set up a subsidiary in Zug, Switzerland for the purpose of avoiding taxes in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...o-of-multi-million-dollar-tax-dodge-1.1860079

This PDF is worth a read if your interested
http://www.veritascorp.com/home/Accounting Alerts - Cameco Corp. April 2, 2013 Veritas.pdf

Clearly this company, that use to be a crown corporation, has been accused of cheating the tax system since they have become "privatized". If you ask me this is what happens when you let the foxes guard the chicken coop.
800-850 million ... how much money is that? Well if you could spend 1 dollar per second it would take you until 2041 to spend all of it.....

I hear you on the tax thing, I too have paid more then my fair share of taxes. I know what it like having employees and having to make sure they and the feds got paid every month.

 

[soxy]

So you judge that you paid more than your fair share of taxes, how does one do that?
You only paid your employees once a month? Just askin.

 

[SophiaB]

My days of debating and arguing on the internet are long over, you saw what I wrote Have a great night

P.s I don't need help, i think we are doing jussssst fine. thanks though!

 

[seadawg]

Canada Steamship Lines.

Tax avoidance. Owned by the Prime Minister.

Paul Martin.

 

[Aces]

My days of debating and arguing on the internet are long over, you saw what I wrote Have a great night

P.s I don't need help, i think we are doing jussssst fine. thanks though!

Is that right, Lorne Parker?

 

[GLG]

So you judge that you paid more than your fair share of taxes, how does one do that?
You only paid your employees once a month? Just askin.

I was in the 50% tax bracket.... and yes I did pay my employees once a month.
It was an option that they liked.
If requested they could get an advance on the 15th.
In all the years I don't think any one used it.
Most companies have a 2 week hold back but not us.
I paid my employees above the going rates in my industry.
I had many a people that wanted to come work for me.
Back then (late 90's) home grown talent was worth something.
Not so much any more as you can get cheaper labour from other countries.
Back then off-shoring the profits was an option that I looked at.
Lot's of companies were doing it but in the final analysis it looked too dicey to go that route.
Better to just play the game and keep my chin up.