Liquor and cigarette prices should go higHER !!!

Where did I attack the union? I only pointed out that this document was created BY the union, and as such will necessarily be slanted. A union has only one purpose (at least in theory): protection of its members interests. More often than not, that means using scare tactics.

hmm... but privatization leads to longer hours and more selection overall, too.

Marijuana ftmfw!

Fair enough.

Private liquor stores are already open till 11, Signature liquor stores till 9, I've never really had an issue getting to a store in time. Liquidating the distribution network will not lengthen those hours anyway, the hours are restricted by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, not the Liquor Distribution Branch.

Not sure what you mean by more selection, but if you're referring to availability of different products, read the first article I posted. Privatization kills the availability of great little niche products.

Keep in mind, that at this time, stores are not being privatized, just the dirstribution warehouses.

Selection, purchasing and pricing are all set by the buyers...the warehouses just take in shipments, and distribute to stores. That's it.

The distribution warehouses ultimately set the product availability though, no? The stores just order from the selection of products stocked at the distribution warehouse.

If the distribution warehouse is privatized, I can see them working like a giant private liquor store and not stocking the niche products that sit longer and thereby have lower profit margins.

The thing is, once the distribution is gone, the stores will be the ones to go next. If not, you will most likely see an increase in liquor prices at BC liquor stores as they now have to pay a private company to supply their liquor.
As for the employees in the distribution, whoever takes over the distribution has to agree to hire all employees who were employed before May 31st 2012 (rough estimate of date). That means the private company will be paying employees for their BC pension plan as well.

I wouldn't think so...I mean, here's a problem in communicating what the intentions are, as they have NOT, but the warehouse would traditionally be responsible for handling inbound and outbound shipments..that's it. The buyers would still be working for the branch, in conjunction with the stores.

Your basic 3PL setup...the third party logistics provider(whomever ultimately runs distribution) gets told whats going in, and what's going out...get it done.

Success!

Striking down this proposal is a victory whether you support the privatization of liquor or not, because the concerns over corruption were very well founded and no deal should proceed under those conditions. At least that's my opinion.

I think the liberals at first considered it, then saw the backlash, then used it as a bargaining chip.

The price of liquor does not bother me, however I do not like the government and union control over distribution.

because....

more competitors and more selection = more expensive and worse? i dunno man...
Posted via RS Mobile

The proposal as it stands would equate to a private monopoly, so there actually wouldn't be more competitors. A good indicator that selection would suffer, the B.C. Craft Brewers Association spoke out against the proposal - a significant statement because if the selection of niche products were to increase in B.C. liquor stores (public or private) I can't imagine a group that would stand to realize more significant benefits.

So.. which side should I side?

I am ok with our pricing structure.
However, I want to be able to purchase a bottle of wine or spirit from my local 711.

Seattle just underwent this this past June and gone private. As a result most prices have gone up:

Buyer's remorse over end of state stores as liquor prices rise | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...117805522.html

http://www.straight.com/article-7379...shington-state

It least that is finally kiboshed, can't imagine how high prices would have gotten

Prices went up because of government fees.

"Washington state privatized the sale of hard alcohol—and made the booze more expensive by raising state fees"

Again, government robbing the private sector.

Would BC have encountered anything similar if they did go private?

Im sure Translink would find a way to squeeze some cash out of that

Washington's situation is quite different than ours; I'm not a hundred percent sure, but it seems that Washington State has completely removed themselves from the liquor market. No distribution, no sales. Everything has now gone private.

Just like in BC, the Washington liquor stores included all the taxes and fees in the sticker price of the bottle which, for Americans, seemed a bit high. But now the private retailers are putting the pre-tax/fee price on the sticker to show them a lower price, only for them to be hit by extra fees and taxes at the till--sometimes more than $10 for a big bottle of Vodka. In addition, the new private stores have two markups that the state stores didn't (because the entire point of this measure was to raise money for the state): a distribution levy of 10% and a retailing levy of 17%. So some of them are inflating their prices to cover these fees.

So Washington's privatization was a TOTAL privatization of distribution and retail.


BC's privatization plan, however, was for distribution only. That instead of BCLDB having BCGEU workers, the distribution warehouses be run by a privatized company. The big problem for many, however, was that the boss would then no longer be responsible to the people of the province, but instead to the company's shareholders. And as was mentioned in this (or some other) thread, the wages paid out by the private company are actually higher than the BCGEU. So the only way they could make money would be by cutting jobs and/or closing plants. Or, of course, raising prices on their piece of the value chain. And since the customers/residents are no longer the "shareholders", we'd have no pull or control and just have to suck it up.

On a separate note, it's good that both BC parties are looking at revising the liquor distribution laws to allow some smaller craft breweries direct deliveries. I think it's a really great thing and will allow a lot more efficiency in smaller markets (the small towns and islands) who would ordinarily have to send their beer or liquor to the main distribution hub only to be re-delivered back to near the source.


SlySi, as far as being able to buy liquor out and about, I very much doubt that's gonna happen for quite awhile.
First, it would kill so many jobs for those under 19. Convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations. You'd always need someone who was over 19 and had done serving it right...and bosses would much rather hire one worker who's over 19 than two, one who's over and one who's under.
Secondly, Surrey Jacks ruin shit for everyone. And by Surrey Jacks I don't mean specifically people who live in Surrey. I mean those assfucks who show up to the fireworks 10 minutes before they start, yelling and screaming while chugging beer and then throwing the bottle into the crowd because they don't want to carry it anymore.
Thirdly, it's illegal to consume alcohol in public. If it becomes possible to buy it almost anywhere, then either the law would have to be changed, or there are gonna be a lot more bylaw tickets handed out. And you know cops are gonna complain about having to focus on drinking in parks instead of assaults and murders and break-ins.



...not that I've spent a lot of time thinking about liquor laws.

I'm pretty confident you're being facetious, because Translink is attached to the GVRD not the Province.

The fact remains, government liquor sales is a major revenue source for British Columbia and it was for Washington. If the revenue generated by government liquor sales were lost in British Columbia, $950 million in revenue would need to be either replaced or deducted from the budget. The billion dollar question is how government would replace the revenue, or where it could be deducted from the budget; Washington's answer was a tax hike, and I can't think of alternative, can you?

Then there's the next question... BCLC. If people don't want government to operate businesses, it would logically be the next to go, there's another $3.5 billion in revenue to pose the above question to.

Why do you want to be able to purchase liquor at convenience stores?

The only issue I somewhat have with the current system, it would be nice if private stores were open until 1am. Other than that, I rarely find myself more than five minutes from a liquor store.

Cause it's more convenient