Printable View
A corporations is not there to create jobs. It's to create profits for the shareholders. A lot of people forget that. And if there are 5 people working at BMO that are not required, it's the CEO's job (or someone below him) to let them go.
That goes from BMO right down to small companies. Since the early 1990's the private sector has been pretty ruthless with "right-sizing". It appears that a lot of participants on the forum here have no concept of that.
Oh I understand completely, you have to go to China or Mexico for a job, because those at the top just want more. Fire a couple of hundred people, and each shareholder would get 1 cent more. Did anyone ask the other staff if they would take a cut to save those 5 jobs. Then why would you think, you should ask teachers the same thing.:rolleyes:
JBen maybe I'm not looking at the right number, but from their corp profile, 672B in assets. 4.6/672 = 6.8% return.
Assets are tricky Werner. At it's simplest at one time
2006
My book, I had over 12billion in assets and liabilities I managed (what are BMOs liabilities LT and ST, theit cash flows, their ability to absorb credit defaults and on and on and on)
As a firm we had about 250,000,000 in capital.
The power of leveraging and some other things
:)
you really don't get the private sector do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Most of the private sector doesn't get raises every year (beyond the years you're building up your experience). After 10 years or so, you switch jobs to get a raise - there's no automatic 1.5 or 2% every year. And the BMO is making money - unlike the province, which is going under. And yes, when companies are going under, the often ask there employees ...even UNIONISED... to take a cut in pay.
Want to know how companies deal with the situation the province is in?
Type auto workers concessions into google. That half million hits is a handful of companies in a single industry. The try the same for steel workers, oil works and just about any other labour segment you can think of. Why should the PS be immune from this?
Banking sick days was negotiated locally for years - ended in 2006 in London. Ended provincially in 2013 as you stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
You know what I find "bothersome" about the comment G.
First off all private business pays your salary. Secondly, our business handles your pension, thirdly EPS is a key measurement (something most pension plans pay a lot of attention to). Fourthly you don't understand that without private you wouldn't exist. And a whole lot more about how the world actually works.
But mostly.
Despite so many in my industry losing their jobs/careers over the past 7 years. Despite these friends who have children to (one going to Uni next year assuming he graduates now), despite their prospects being bleak today
Sluggish economy
Scarcity of jobs, hiring freezes.
Rising Hydro
Rising taxes
Rising fees
Your first thought wasn't about all those things. You know, reality now.
Your first thought was not for them, but big bad BMO. Who atleast can employ tens of thousands, not screw up, do a good job.
And here I was thinking you were the one with a social conscious
How can people who condone breaking the law have any conscience? They voted for Wynne knowing they had brought in a party operative who didn't have security clearance to access Provincial hard drives and archives to destroy evidence that would confirm they lied about wasting $2 Billion to buy off 5 ridings that were at risk? Even if the bought and paid for OPP haven't laid charges, everbody with a brain knew this prior to the election yet they said "that's OK". This government then went on to break the law again and tried bribing a candidate in the Sudbury ByElection. Again everybody with a brain knew exactly what happened there yet they again said "that's OK". So, with morals like that these people have no conscience. They don't care about what is right yet they claim the high ground and call themselves "Progressives". There is nothing progressive about condoning fraud and criminal activity, not a thing.
For the most part Terry "what's done is done". For the next three years things like the economy, hydro, unemployment, deficits, 300b in debt, where savings might be Found, whether or not Unions should really be striking given the times/rhings. Storm clouds on the horizon and more
Like the avg person unable to save, scary futures (no pensions), and more.
But maybe with some "real" perspective, be it people in financial services on thin ice, or manufacturing, or automotive or service industries because Johnny Q is tightening "their" belts, or seniors on fixed incomes, etc
Maybe the govt and unions will one day realize the world changed in 2008.
That the cost of govt is one reason why despite 130 billion in revenue...
And question if strikes are really...
Or get serious about things.
Because in the meantime and for a long time..real people are paying steep prices
Teachers on their last contract didn't receive any pay increases they actually lost 2 days pay... That's a pay cut, not much of one but a pay cut nevertheless... Not sure where you get that they received a 2.5% increase, maybe I just read your post wrong....
Regarding sick days and carry over.......
During the last contract, the government went in and took away what was originally earned..... The government never said hey your old contract is finished so your new contact will say "no more sick day carry overs".... Instead it said "hey your old contract expired, so we are going into your history and removing your sick days you teachers didn't use/accumulated".....
Let me try and explain it a little better with an example.... Its like you sign a 3 year contract for 10% vacation pay but after the contract expires the government says to you..... Hey this new contract will be opening up your old contract and we will be taking that 10% vacation pay away from you because you never spent it all.
That wasn't very fair at all for all the teachers that carried over their sick days....
Most teachers carried over their sick days in case (God forbid)they needed them before their long term disability kicked in....There was no financial buyout for teachers (at least in the last 20-30 years) for carrying over sick days. I should add the reason most teachers had days to carry over was because most teachers didn't take many sick days....
Now this new contract isn't about pay increases or benefits its about language....
Maybe some of you know more (first hand info) then what the media is saying, please inform the rest of us...