Printable View
Schneider's official line the entire time was that the Ontario plants were too old to upgrade efficiently/affordably.
All their other plants are modern, and the ones that haven't already been automated, are slated to be.
MLF has INCREASED canadian-based production by eliminating people and moving towards automation. Automation requires insane amounts of electricity. Obviously cost of electricity is NOT a factor in this story.
Not sure how come to that conclusion M.
Further if its simply a case of automation and modernization (which clearly there is, not suggesting otherwise) . Odd don't you think no plant closures/automation/layoffs abroad? And in fact they modernized plants in Saskatoon and Winnepeg. Not sure how that escaped you, and that's what I was mainly pointing out.
/edit add
lest there be any confusion. Not saying your wrong, not saying Trimmer is.
The bottom line is they needed to streamline in order to be more competitive, increase margins.
Its getting really expensive to run things here in Ont.
just one more thought to head off, avoid anything
Would it be fair to wonder, think, question, factor in.
If the plan is to streamline/modernize reduce cost, boost margins. And modern plants are hydro intensive
Would you not have to look at the price of Hydro here, (as well as tax treatment/land taxes, min wages, deductions say like ORPP or WSIB etc) and where its (Hydro) projected to go? I sure as heck would. So would it be fair to wonder, suggest, ask, question........ if your both right?
And that's why i keep pointing out that this has absolutely nothing to do with taxes or hydro costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
MLF has INTENSIFIED investment in growth of Ontario plants. They're not hedging their bets at all.
http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/dail...ats-business-2 <--- a good write up detailing exactly what plants closed, which expanded, jobs lost, jobs hoped to be gained, etc.
Nothing you find in any write up anywhere will even remotely mention cost of hydro. However, several other causes of their organizational shift ARE specifically mentioned in almost every writeup or company quote.
Yeah I know M, but by the same token the decisions what/where to close, what/where to modernize. You factor all those things in, including the cost of hydro. Do you think any company be it Catepillar or any of the other plants that have mothballed plants have said specifically "hydro cost"?
If you have 8 aging plants and can save cost by having 1 new modern plant (itself more hydro intensive than any one of the 8, but less hydro than the 8 combined) and you know Hydro is soaring and going to continue to....plus other factors..Would you call that a good business decision? What would you think of doing. Pretty much exactly what MLF is doing? Or would you modernize 4 of the 8, 6 of the 8?
Do also note there are other MLF closures not included in your list (if Im not mistaken).
Bottom Line MLF is restructuring, reducing overhead."and for the love of god don't say rising cost have nothing to do with it :)
Your arguments sometimes carry so little water :)
Tell you what M, of the dozens of plants that have mothballed in recent years. Rather than me finding one mention of rising hydro cost cited by MLF.
Why don't you find one specific reference to Hydro from any of the dozens...and then come and argue it has nothing to do with it. They don't say that. Its called an operating expense.
Rgeardless and pardon the pun :)
No matter how its sliced (or diced) rising cost are eating into profits and companies are
what exactly?
JB, why don't you also say it is because they have a union , and they would save the plant with a big pay cut, you always end up there anyway.
Why are you a) bringing that in and b) trolling? C) putting words in my mouth.
Problems G?
who knows that "may" be a factor as well.
Bottom line. MLFs reasons are to save a hoped for 560 million in cost, in plain English reduce expenses/boost profits.. That includes many things.
So at the end of the day.
if 1 new modern robotic plant (less unionized people, less management, less taxes, and less overhead, less maintenance (less unionized maintenance people required) less floor space (land taxes) more efficient robots (less hydro) saves 560mm over 8 plants....
is Trimmer wrong?
Simply... Yes, trimmer is wrong.
He didn't read any articles or watch the vid and just assumed a) that MLF/Schneider's have closed and left ON and b) he assumes the cause are factors not once mentioned in this scenario.
MLF is not leaving ON, it's EXPANDING and INCREASING its operations, and doing so in a manner that will be even more energy intensive than before.
Trimmer couldn't have been more wrong.
On "leaving" Ont I quite agree with you, hence why I said you could both be right.
Anytime any company cites restructuring in order to reduce operating expenses.
I can't be bothered to go digging for the numbers although Im sure they are out there.
MLF is spending a boatload of money... in order to save… expenses.close cost gaps with the US boost profits.. For manufacturing industries.
Big plants = lots of Hydro. Makes perfect sense with soaring hydro to junk the old refrigerator and get energy efficient ones.
Lots of plants= lots little guys, middle guys, top dogs. Some unionized/some not
Lots in taxes and deductions (wsib, etc, etc)
Expensive leases (floorspace) and why are leases getting expensive? And land taxes?
Im assuming transportation cost is something key to MLF hence the centralized distribution centre. And why are they getting expensive?
And more Im sure.
Just one more thought on this, promise.. in an attempt to illustrate just why Trimmer could be/likely is right, in his own way. But do agree with you (although most of cost reductions are occurring in Ont)
MLF, raw materials (Wheat for the bakeries, meats).
Why are they going up in price, skyrocketing? See the recent thread about the price of produce and meat (they specifically mention pork and profits there dwindling).
Why are farmers struggling? Land taxes, hydro their cost to do business, and Johhny shopping at WT instead...rebates done away with.
and on
and on.