# Layoffs mounting.......what is going on?



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Potash is laying off 440 people, Heinz, Kelloggs, Encana, Sears and.....BMO quietly let go 1000 people in Toronto........what is going on?

Today, the local news had a story on a new tire re-treading plant opening in St. Marys, Ontario....great news if retreaded tires catch on.

They had 330 jobs, with 40 reserved for military vets (nice idea).......but had over 1,000 applicants the first day. The pay is $16 for production workers and $22 for trades. (Trades working for $45,000 a year.......is better than nothing......but not great)

They interviewed some people..........laid off from the GM plant in Ingersoll.......the CAMI plant laid off ?? 

Someone else was laid off from a Toyota plant in Stratford...........Toyota laid off?

It seems the layoffs are mounting, sometimes quietly.......but the list is getting longer almost every day.

The US-Iran deal threatens to put another 1 million barrels of oil onto the open market. Not good news for Albertans.

Is Canada falling into a recession?

Word from the Bank of Canada...........no change.........but maybe "lowering" interest rates in the future, according to pundits.

This sure doesn't sound like the rosy picture Flaherty and Harper are portraying as a slow but steady improving economy.

It is starting to not look so good.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

Not all layoffs can be attributed to this, but I think this has something to do with high indebtedness. This was predicted by some…especially the house market bears… they theorize the following:

1. Cdns are HEAVILY indebted (consumer debt and mortgages)
2. High indebtedness leads to reductions in consumer spending
3. Too much capital in the Cdn econ is directed toward housing and ancillary industries which means less capital direct toward R & D, upgrades to machinery, and so on

I believe this is what is happening. I think this is the canary in the coal mine… housing will correct soon..


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am thankful we are retired and done with working full time.

We were very, very lucky to have the same good jobs for lifetime careers........and pensions when we retired.

But one thing I find odd in all this...........

According to the bank............we are considered "high risk" now. I was told this information by a friend who was talking about it at a party.

As $60,000 of our $82,000 a year income comes from pensions, and $22,000 comes from my wife's part time job..........they consider 0 for pension income and $11,000 (50% of the work earnings) as the "total income" they recognize.

We have an "income" of $11,000 per year.........according to them.

I don't care.........because we don't need to borrow, but does it make sense that someone walking in to the bank with a "job", who could be told they no longer have it tomorrow..........would be considered a "low risk" by the bank?

Just saying..........the world seems to be turned upside down.

I wonder how many "low risk" borrowers are going to be defaulting and causing bank losses in the future.

I read awhile ago, that people who enter bankruptcy usually have very high credit scores, which paved the way for their big debt loads.

If they had lousy credit.........they couldn't have buried themselves in debt.

Good luck to younger folks............buying homes they can barely pay for............at prices that are ridiculously high..........in this old farts mind.

Half a million dollars..........a million dollars.........for an average condo or a house?

I never would have believed it possible.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> I am thankful we are retired and done with working full time.
> 
> We were very, very lucky to have the same good jobs for lifetime careers........and pensions when we retired.
> 
> ...


this is why we rent… and my wife and i have great credit, secure permanent employment… and savings…

this will correct...


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Toyota has a plant in Stratford? News to me.They are busy as heck at Toyota here in Cambridge and I think at Woodstock
Layoffs are a companies bid to raise profits by getting rid of an expense ie employees.Shareholders want profits to grow.
I do agree that things are not as rosy as Mr Harper would have us think.Otherwise why would we need all those Canada's Economic Action Plan ads brainwashing us?


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

Canada Post has probably cut at least 2000 jobs in Canada with the new car delivery system, no layoffs, just wait until people retire
They also introduced 2 tier wage system, like Air Canada

Harpers plan is, why have 2 people make 20 dollars and hour total 40
when you can have 3 people doing more work for 15 bucks an hour or 45 total


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

SheaButters said:


> Canada Post has probably cut at least 2000 jobs in Canada with the new car delivery system, no layoffs, just wait until people retire
> They also introduced 2 tier wage system, like Air Canada
> 
> Harpers plan is, why have 2 people make 20 dollars and hour total 40
> when you can have 3 people doing more work for 15 bucks an hour or 45 total



Canada Post is awful service wise and should be shelved.. privatize it. Canada should privatize as much as possible… All crown industries (starting with CMHC!)


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

CMHC should not be privatized...it should be dissolved/decommissioned.

The UK recently privatized the Royal Mail, including offering large block of stocks to the employees.
We should do the same.

Many of the Crown Corps. like Canada Post, VIA Rail, etc. have simply become money pits for tax dollars over the years.
With their huge operating losses, pension liabilities, and crushing compensation costs, these corporations are simply not viable any more.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

sags said:


> I am thankful we are retired and done with working full time.
> 
> We were very, very lucky to have the same good jobs for lifetime careers........and pensions when we retired.


I am on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I'm just beginning my working years. Luckily I have a good job, which I'm starting in a couple months. Sadly, I can't say the same about a lot of my peers. If housing prices don't cool then I may end up renting forever, or at least a very long time. I can't fathom paying some of the prices in downtown Toronto or Vancouver right now, and I'd rather have disposable income than be house poor. Also, pension? In 50 years that might be a forgotten word. I'll have to save, save, save!


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> CMHC should not be privatized...it should be dissolved/decommissioned.


+1

A penalty for a homebuyer who already can't afford a sizeable downpayment, to protect the bank if they default. Imagine! The banks don't need protection. What they need is to comply to the Basel capital requirements and practice responsible lending.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

SheaButters said:


> Canada Post has probably cut at least 2000 jobs in Canada with the new car delivery system, no layoffs, just wait until people retire
> They also introduced 2 tier wage system, like Air Canada


Just wait 10-20 years when the vast majority of employees with DB pensions retire. Things are going to get ugly - their pension right now is severely underfunded.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

[shrug] A return to a normalized interest rate environment will work magic on those underfunded pensions.


----------



## Feruk (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm not sure what the deal with all these layoffs are, but they're quite rampant in Alberta as well. Major oil companies (Encana, Devon, Penn West, Talisman) are all either doing layoffs or have done layoffs. Rumors Cenovus will soon as well. Some of these companies are doing so because of financial difficulties, but this isn't true across the board.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

It will decrease the PV of the liability but it doesn't necessarily mean it will help experience gains (losses) on the plan assets. What is the bigger concern is the union doesn't want to increase employee contributions. With the push towards DC plans, there will be fewer and fewer employee contributions to the DB plans, but more people receiving the DB benefits and people are living longer.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

With DB plans, does the company normally actually pay out the DB themselves or do they just buy an annuity for the employee at the retirement date?


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

The company pays money to a trustee, who manages the funds and then pays the benefits to the retirees. An actuary estimates what is required to fund the payout based on factors such as age, inflation, number of years worked, etc. It is then up to the company to pay enough money to the trustee to meet the pension obligation. When the actuary increases the estimated liability, more money must be paid. In theory, the increased cost would be shared between the company and employee. However, often times unions push back against these things, forcing the company to make up for the entire shortfall.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Sorry, after re-reading my response I don't know if it really answered your question. The company doesn't pay the employees directly. It goes through the trustee. I suppose the trustee could choose to buy an annuity and pay it out to the retirees, but that may not be wise. If the defined benefits are indexed (increase with inflation) then it creates an increasing differential between fixed annuity returns and growing payouts to retirees. The other issue is that the actuarial estimates include estimations for number of service years (at what age the employee will retire) and number of years lived after retirement (when they will die). The DB pension benefits are usually based on number of years worked and a number of the employee's top earning years. If the employee works longer than the actuary estimated, the DB will be larger. If the employee lives longer than the actuary estimated, more is paid out over time.


----------



## Taraz (Nov 24, 2013)

I imagine many of these layoffs are because robots/computers are replacing the (overpriced) human workers. How much does a heavy hauler driver make? I know at least one oil sands company is replacing them with self-driving vehicles, which do a better job. I suspect any companies that aren't doing it already it will be doing it soon. Driving jobs will be gradually disappearing over the next 20-30 years as self-driving car technology improves and comes down in price.

Like the agricultural revolution and industrial revolution, the computer/robotics revolution will cause mass upheaval. There will be winners and losers. Plan accordingly.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

sags said:


> ...
> 
> But one thing I find odd in all this...........
> 
> ...


I don't know who told you that, but AFAIK, that is not standard in the industry.

Fixed income is not looked upon as 'zero' for credit adjudication purposes...quite the contrary, in fact. Pension income is essentially guaranteed income; there is no danger of termination, layoff, quitting, etc. that comes with employment income. Banks love 'safe' income.

As for part-time work, most lenders will simply want pay stubs + a 2-3 year history of earnings (NOA + T1 Gen) to confirm consistency of that income...they should not be using 50%. Who do you bank with?!?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MRT said:


> I don't know who told you that, but AFAIK, that is not standard in the industry.
> 
> Fixed income is not looked upon as 'zero' for credit adjudication purposes...quite the contrary, in fact. Pension income is essentially guaranteed income; there is no danger of termination, layoff, quitting, etc. that comes with employment income. Banks love 'safe' income.
> 
> As for part-time work, most lenders will simply want pay stubs + a 2-3 year history of earnings (NOA + T1 Gen) to confirm consistency of that income...they should not be using 50%. Who do you bank with?!?


I agree. That was exactly my (fully retired) case when I looked for a short term HELOC in 2012 after not having been in the loan market for 20 years. Copies of my pension T4As/T4Ps, and a couple of years of my NOA and T1 Gen).


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

MRT said:


> Pension income is essentially guaranteed income; there is no danger of termination, layoff, quitting, etc. that comes with employment income. Banks love 'safe' income.
> 
> 
> > That may not be such a given in some areas....
> ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, it looks like some retired folks in Detroit are going to have their income pulled out from under them, and then it might spread like the plague across municipalities, as they seek to relieve themselves of financial liabilities as well.

It works both ways though..........at least in Canada.

Pension income is "debtor proof" so lenders can't garnish the pension income in a default. 

That makes it "high risk" to a bank.

How many Detroit pensioners will be defaulting on their debt, so they can keep what little pension they have left......to live and eat?

Detroit's "default" on pensioners...........will also come at a cost to lenders, and ripple through the economy.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Detroit is an utter mess. I feel for those folks.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

Siwash said:


> this is why we rent… and my wife and i have great credit, secure permanent employment… and savings…
> 
> this will correct...


Wouldn't you feel more secure with mortgage free house, great credit? secure permanent employment? You would be able to save more.
renting would more applicable if you had an insecure employment position, no?


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

Hawkdog said:


> Wouldn't you feel more secure with mortgage free house, great credit? secure permanent employment? You would be able to save more.
> renting would more applicable if you had an insecure employment position, no?


More and more folks are doing this… We are saving a lot and our rent is much cheaper than a mortgage, property tax and all the ancillary costs of owning a home… it's an overrated investment.. great investment if you bought b/w 1991 and 2003, not so much anymore.

the numbers I crunch leave us in a better position financially by renting right now. I am taking a chance, in a sense, by banking on the RE market going south… I am not factoring in a "crash" but a slowdown and slight correction. If it goes up still, we can still be ahead based on our savings. We are getting 3% on our returns now b/c we went the safe route.. 3 or 4 years I think we will be paying more to borrow but housing will not have gone up much (hopefully!) or hopefully declined… But we will have a much bigger down payment… Not satisfied with the 17% or 18% down we have now based on what we want to buy. Housing is stupid expensive and pricing is out of whack.. virtually no wage increase over the past several years but housing base tripled since 2000. Not a good scenario and I believe this is a recipe for correction..


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I too feel for those folks in Detroit. City of Detroit pensioners do not get Social Security, Detroit was an employer that opted out. To make matters worse the Pension Guarantee Corp. does not cover public pensions. 

I guess that is what happens when the pension fund has been looted through suspect investments/mismanagement for years on end and the City failed to contribute for years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

fraser said:


> I too feel for those folks in Detroit. City of Detroit pensioners do not get Social Security, Detroit was an employer that opted out. To make matters worse the Pension Guarantee Corp. does not cover public pensions.
> 
> I guess that is what happens when the pension fund has been looted through suspect investments/mismanagement for years on end and the City failed to contribute for years.


Employers can opt out of Social Security?

That is a good example of why contributions to an enhanced CPP must be mandatory...........and "hands off" by employers and governments.

So what are old pensioners and widows supposed to do now?

I would think the US government is going to have to step in and bail out the pension fund.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags, allow me to hand this to you on a platter...
A war of words between the CEO of Potash Corp. (which recently laid off over a 1,000 workers), and the Premier of Saskatchewan, regarding dividends vs. jobs.

Apparently, the premier indicated that the company should consider slashing the dividend to preserve jobs.

Obviously, the CEO disagrees and shows that his company was actually significantly overstaffed in anticipation of future demand, which has not materialized.

Read the debate here.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hilarious. Companies aren't for welfare. Companies should worry about profit, governments should worry about welfare.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Thanks for the link Harold.

Both sides have some merit to their argument, but I would have to agree with the CEO of Potash in this instance.

I found his quote here the most compelling.........

_“If we reduced our dividend to zero, *we still need to right-size our operations* in order to protect the long-term sustainability of our company – and all of the remaining jobs.”_

The company can't be expected to retain employees for whom it has no work. Corporations aren't charities or social safety nets. That is the government's responsibility and something most Canadians expect as part of the taxes we pay.

I think it would be fair to expect the Potash Corporation to treat the laid off employees in the same manner it would treat high ranking executives though. A generous severance package, retraining and relocation packages, and some basic help for employees who will be struggling to sort out their future, would not be onerous for this company, and I think that most share holders of Potash would agree that commitment would be fair.

Supply and demand, is what I have always thought dictates the job market............and that corporate tax cuts and other corporate welfare have little effect on overall company hiring. 

If the workers are unionized, (I don't know if they are or not) the union also has a responsibility in assisting their members during these kind of events.

When a company and union work together, setting up centers to assist the laid off workers, it can work to everyone's benefit.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Hilarious. Companies aren't for welfare. Companies should worry about profit, governments should worry about welfare.


I am all for education/helath care/helping the less fortunate, etc... with my tax dollars, however I do wish more gov't officials thought of their funding more like a business owner would. As if it were the other way around, we would have many more businesses going into bankruptcy.

The share holders are the companies first concern....perhaps the Province of Saskatewan shold buy some POT shares....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Even if Sask owned some POT shares, they can't expect the company to do anything contrary to the interests of shareholders unless they fully own the company. The directors have a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of shareholders.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Yes, my understanding is that public sector employers can opt out of Social Security and that this is not an unusual practice. The DB plans are deemed to be a replacement for Social Security. Social Security in the US is not like CPP and is NOT based/capped at average wage level. Unlike CPP, it is not funded properly. Pension Guaranty Corp does not cover public service pensions.

The other anomaly with Detroit pensions is the '13 cheque' and extra funding of 401's that accompanied the DB plans. When the pension plan returns did well in any particular year, say 8 or 9 percent, DB recipients would be given a 13th cheque...essentially a bonus. Makes no sense. Also, they had optional 401K's. The pension plan provided bonus to these and high interest rates. This, added to the charges of pension plan corruption and underfunding by the City have made for a complete mess. There is even talk of clawing back some of the City's contributions to those 401K's.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

AND why comparisons of Detroit to the Canadian situation are pretty far off the mark. It is a very different situation in the U.S. 

(p.s. CBC radio ran a long piece on the Detroit pension debacle this morning)


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

Siwash said:


> More and more folks are doing this… We are saving a lot and our rent is much cheaper than a mortgage, property tax and all the ancillary costs of owning a home… it's an overrated investment.. great investment if you bought b/w 1991 and 2003, not so much anymore.
> 
> the numbers I crunch leave us in a better position financially by renting right now. I am taking a chance, in a sense, by banking on the RE market going south… I am not factoring in a "crash" but a slowdown and slight correction. If it goes up still, we can still be ahead based on our savings. We are getting 3% on our returns now b/c we went the safe route.. 3 or 4 years I think we will be paying more to borrow but housing will not have gone up much (hopefully!) or hopefully declined… But we will have a much bigger down payment… Not satisfied with the 17% or 18% down we have now based on what we want to buy. Housing is stupid expensive and pricing is out of whack.. virtually no wage increase over the past several years but housing base tripled since 2000. Not a good scenario and I believe this is a recipe for correction..


Yes, if you are young and just getting into the market that makes sense and if you don't plan to live there for any length of time, but i have friends who have been waiting 7 years for the market to correct meanwhile missing out on record low interest rates and an increase in house prices.

We are on a 6 year plan to pay off our mortgage, we have taken it from a 25 year mortgage to an 11 year in just 2 years. And I still max out my TFSA and RRSPs.
I guess I just feel the security of owning my home outright during an economic downturn gives me piece of mind.

You can save up to replace roof shingles or replace your dishwasher, rent is due every month no exceptions.

But I don't live in Vancouver or Toronto either and that makes a big difference.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some companies used to treat their retirees very well indeed.

I have 2 uncles who retired from the CPR. They both have life time passes to ride the rails.

Both are elderly and don't use them much..........if at all, but it was a nice retirement "perk" to have.

That benefit was discontinued years ago though.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

Hawkdog said:


> Yes, if you are young and just getting into the market that makes sense and if you don't plan to live there for any length of time, but i have friends who have been waiting 7 years for the market to correct meanwhile missing out on record low interest rates and an increase in house prices.
> 
> We are on a 6 year plan to pay off our mortgage, we have taken it from a 25 year mortgage to an 11 year in just 2 years. And I still max out my TFSA and RRSPs.
> I guess I just feel the security of owning my home outright during an economic downturn gives me piece of mind.
> ...


I'm sure your friends should have bought 7 years ago.. if they were in a good position to do so… prices have pretty much doubled or more in many parts of the GTA. Does anyone think they'll actually double or triple again in 7? I think not… I believe we've seen the peak… we've become incredibly indebted and many are maxed out.. 

Prices increases are due to taking on more debt not wages increases.. 

Bad fundamentals...


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Hilarious. Companies aren't for welfare. Companies should worry about profit, governments should worry about welfare.


+1

Not a well-thought argument made by the Premier. Keeping the 18% of its employees under current conditions will hurt many more over the long run. The Premier should be concerned that the workers who are let go have the skills and resources to find new employment.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

"But I don't live in Vancouver or Toronto either and that makes a big difference."

+1

Also, instead of waiting for prices to correct, or at least slow, do the math. If you can rent and save more money than home ownership and all the costs associated with it (taxes, improvements, maintenance) then rent. If you find you're close to breaking even when you compare the two, take the plunge and get a house before rates (eventually) move up. That could be years in the making though.

I wish people (mostly media) would stop worrying so much about housing and speculating where prices will be or won't be. I guess that sells papers though and brings in TV revenue though...


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

Yet employment went up despite the layoffs cited. Layoffs are normal. 
Creative destruction should be embraced, not lamented. 
People should educate and train themselves accordingly.
I have been on both sides of it. Sometimes being laid off can be a positive thing viewed from a long term perspective.
A good life is not a life without struggle, but a life that triumphs over it.

Plan accordingly.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Longwinston said:


> Yet employment went up despite the layoffs cited. Layoffs are normal.
> Creative destruction should be embraced, not lamented.
> People should educate and train themselves accordingly.
> I have been on both sides of it. Sometimes being laid off can be a positive thing viewed from a long term perspective.
> ...


+1

This is what I was somewhat getting at by my above comment regarding being adequately skilled. Layoffs and employee turnover (to an extent) are healthy for the economy. Some lament that systematic unemployment creates a permament loss of jobs but fail to acknowledge how it can also create jobs - just new types of jobs. It's important for everyone to prioritize skill development.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

sags said:


> 1. A generous severance package
> 2. Supply and demand, is what I have always thought dictates the job market.


*1.* How about a fair severance package?

*2.* But the above statement seems to contradict your earlier comments that "never before in history, have unions been more relevant and never has the need for workers to unionize been so great."

Unless you meant that unions do control supply & demand as the cartels that they are, and never mind the rest that makes up the economy. 

While the world has experienced dramatic economic/technological changes/manufacturing progress, etc., etc., unions still sing pretty much the same song, so how can they be more 'relevant' now than ever before?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* How about a fair severance package?
> 
> *2.* But the above statement seems to contradict your earlier comments that "never before in history, have unions been more relevant and never has the need for workers to unionize been so great."
> 
> ...


What can a union do........when supply and demand are the key determining business factors........you ask.

A union can prevent a company...........like a bank for instance, from hiring foreign temporary workers to replace full time workers. A union can suggest alternatives to layoffs.........such as work sharing, temporarily lowering compensation for all workers, bringing in new products. A union can ensure that the layoffs follow a seniority path, so that older, more costly workers aren't prime targets. Unions can work with the company and it's members to set up help for laid off workers, ensure they are collecting benefits they are entitled to receive, have opportunities for training.........and negotiate a "fair" severance package, rather than the company paying the government mandated minimum.

Layoffs will occur, unionized workforce or not, but the union represents the workers in those situations.

Remove the unions.................and who represents the workers?


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

I'd like to argue the need for unions in Canada is little. Unions were a useful device to protect labourers from being exploited by management decades or even over a century ago. Labour standards, working conditions, and corporate values are much higher today. We have labour boards, human resource ambassadors, and ombudsmen that we didn't have when unions were most relevant. Employees don't need the same protection they needed in the past. In fact, unionized employees have more power today than they ever have. If you look at what union reps have managed to negotiate, you'll see that most unionized employees have more benefits than a lot of professional workers.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

sags said:


> Remove the unions.................and who represents the workers?


Workers in today's economy don't necessarily need a formal bargaining or representing unit. Even when laid off, a skilled worker will have no problem finding work, provided their skills remain developed and in demand.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I do have an understanding of what unions do and don't do.

Canadian understood my points.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Employers can opt out of Social Security?
> 
> That is a good example of why contributions to an enhanced CPP must be mandatory..........


Hmmm ... from what I understand this is yet another instance of the differences between the US & Canada as:



> Third: the CPP is a mandatory contribution plan.
> Employees and employers do not have an option to voluntarily participate in the CPP, but are instead required by law to contribute. This distinguishes the CPP from the public pension plans of other countries, such as Britain; there, individuals can opt out of contributing to a central plan in favour of other retirement income schemes.


http://mapleleafweb.com/features/canada-pension-plan-overview-history-and-debates



Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Canadian said:


> I'd like to argue the need for unions in Canada is little ...
> Labour standards, working conditions, and corporate values are much higher today ...
> Employees don't need the same protection they needed in the past. In fact, unionized employees have more power today than they ever have..


I'm not sure my co-worker who was called back from a conference so that he could be fired for "just cause", where the company demanded he pay back the full conference fee despite the firing decision/documentation having been completed a month before the conference. 

Or perhaps the one who was laid off as "redundant" where the company was advertising for a different title but the same responsibilities two weeks after the layoff.

Or the sales guy let go as redundant yet the owner's son transitioned from university to the sales guy's clients.



Cheers


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Those are instances that can be brought forward to labour board, HR, ombudsmen, and the like. Those resources are widely available and serve as protection mechanisms similar to unions, in theory. Those instances are practices of poor employment practices. A union won't change what an employer tries to do. The emphasis I place on skill development is that a skilled, productive employee who falls into one of your scenarios can easily find new employment, likely at a work place with higher values.


----------



## Westerncanada (Nov 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Potash is laying off 440 people, Heinz, Kelloggs, Encana, Sears and.....BMO quietly let go 1000 people in Toronto........what is going on?
> 
> Today, the local news had a story on a new tire re-treading plant opening in St. Marys, Ontario....great news if retreaded tires catch on.
> 
> ...


Several of the retail giants did the same thing from a national level.. We let go a few hundred as well.. I think November is the time of year to pay out severances.. wash their hands clean and gear up for the new year! 

It is a sad reality.. everyone that does have stable employment should be very grateful!


----------



## Cdnwife (Sep 10, 2013)

Or an employment lawyer... I am not unionized yet my employer attempted to push me out. Advice from an employment lawyer helped me push back and retain my job until the RIF occurred. Things are still being negotiated as I am on Mat Leave, but I do not know that a union would not have protected me any better than standing up for myself with a lawyer. Yes there are costs with a lawyer, but you also have costs with unions in the likes of union dues. I think it is up to each person to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

An employment lawyer would be very useful. Actually, probably more useful than the resources I mentioned. I was trying to highlight free resources though - showing that anyone can access it. People (yes, even those who aren't unionized) aren't that powerless against employers. Many do not understand their rights and fail to seek resources and stand up for themselves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadian said:


> An employment lawyer would be very useful. Actually, probably more useful than the resources I mentioned. I was trying to highlight free resources though - showing that anyone can access it. People (yes, even those who aren't unionized) aren't that powerless against employers. Many do not understand their rights and fail to seek resources and stand up for themselves.


Any protection for employees the government has in place is minimal, time consuming to initiate, and the remedies are often not worth the effort or cost.

A labor lawyer would be a better, though much costlier option. It could cost upwards of $25,000 for a lawyer fight a case against a reticent employer, and it could take several years for the case to be settled.

When there is a strong union presence, with a history of defending their employees, the dispute resolution begins on a level playing field.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cdnwife said:


> Or an employment lawyer... I am not unionized yet my employer attempted to push me out. Advice from an employment lawyer helped me push back and retain my job until the RIF occurred. Things are still being negotiated as I am on Mat Leave, but I do not know that a union would not have protected me any better than standing up for myself with a lawyer. Yes there are costs with a lawyer, but you also have costs with unions in the likes of union dues. I think it is up to each person to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.


I would suppose that being unionized, there would be a negotiated contract in place, and a procedure for reducing the workforce would be in place. Companies that deal with unionized workplaces have their own lawyers, and if the company is blatantly violating the contract, it is likely their lawyers would advise them of the likelihood of losing the case and the possible costs of continuing.

Hence, many actions that may be initiated well below, and without the knowledge of, the corporate head office, are often reversed when the union brings the matter to the attention of the real decision makers.

An example is that Buzz Hargrove, past President of the CAW, didn't negotiate at the local workplace level, but did represent employees at the head office level, if the dispute managed to reach that level. CEOs don't like to spend their time dealing with trivial local workplace matters, and lower level managers are pressured to resolve the issues before they reach that level.


----------



## thebomb (Feb 3, 2012)

Canadian said:


> Those are instances that can be brought forward to labour board, HR, ombudsmen, and the like. Those resources are widely available and serve as protection mechanisms similar to unions, in theory. Those instances are practices of poor employment practices. A union won't change what an employer tries to do. The emphasis I place on skill development is that a skilled, productive employee who falls into one of your scenarios can easily find new employment, likely at a work place with higher values.


You mentioned the above in response to Eclectic12's scenarios that were laid out. In fact in a non union environment the resources you mentioned would do little to no help. All 3 scenarios spelled out would be viewed as not covered by any protection provided for by employment and labour laws (a little different in Quebec). The only resource is the Employment Standards Act and the compensation in those is the minimum. You would most certainly not be getting your job back as resintatement is not a remedy offered by the ESA. Unless a direct violation of protected class(i.e gender, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, disability etc) is proven through the human rights act/code then you are up a creek.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Canadian said:


> Those are instances that can be brought forward to labour board, HR, ombudsmen, and the like. Those resources are widely available and serve as protection mechanisms similar to unions, in theory.


Some of these might be useful ... there does seem to a problem with the theory as I don't expect HR to be much help considering they were involved by the manager & were sitting in on the dismissal. I'm also not sure what track record any of the rest have as in each case, the next stop after leaving the building was a lawyer, followed by some combination of time in court with a settlement to follow or jumping straight into negotiating a settlement.

If I recall correctly, the one instance that was in the paper that went to the labour board resulted just a bit less than a year's salary. The part that stuck in my mind was the quote from the former worker who was hoping that now it had been proven that she shouldn't have been fired for enforcing the company's policy of the day, she was hoping she wouldn't have to move to another city to work at the airport again.




Canadian said:


> Those instances are practices of poor employment practices. A union won't change what an employer tries to do.


I'm not so sure about that ... the union environments I've either worked in or around make a far greater effort to follow the rules in place. Where a manager insisted on breaking the negotiated rules, the grievance was recorded in days & the negotiated penalty was paid on the employee's next pay cheque compared to the case I mentioned that too between months and years to resolve.




Canadian said:


> The emphasis I place on skill development is that a skilled, productive employee who falls into one of your scenarios can easily find new employment, likely at a work place with higher values.


One would think ... but over the years, I've seen people I'd never hire get jobs at other places quickly and other I'd hire quickly take months & years to do so.


In any case, my point is if the protection is so good - why are companies who are paying significant money to an HR department to avoid such problems allowing managers/directors pull these stunts?

None of these cases are small mom & pop shops who didn't know the law or didn't have experts on staff.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A sad announcement today about the Kelloggs plant in London, Ontario closing with the loss of 600 jobs.

I used to tour that plant on a daily basis as a young boy. They would give away a "snack pak" at the end of every plant tour. We would then cross the street and take a tour of the Coke bottling plant across the road and get an ice cold Coke at the end of the tour. Then we would go to a nearby pack and eat the loot........finishing it off with a slice of pizza (if we had found enough pop bottles along the 5 mile walk downtown to cash in).

The plant was an anchor for the area. Coke, Kelvinator, Emco, Kelloggs, McCormicks. CPR Rail yard........all within a stone throw of each other. People lived in the area and walked to work. 

A true "blue collar" area. They even had a popular 8 team hockey league........East End Manufacturing League.........that played every Saturday morning, and hundreds of fans would watch the exciting games. Many of the factories would hire junior or ex-pro hockey players........to work for them, there was that much pride in the league.

All gone now...........and not replaced with anything of substance.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/12/10/hundreds-losing-jobs-as-kelloggs-closing-london-plant


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

I read this article this morning: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/09/terence-corcoran-ontario-driving-jobs-out-with-blue-boxes-green-energy/

I wonder how much these programs actually play into the decisions to close up shop in Ontario.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> A sad announcement today about the Kelloggs plant in London, Ontario closing with the loss of 600 jobs ...


You can add Heinz to the list as well ....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/heinz-closes-leamington-plant-740-people-out-of-work-1.2426608


Cheers


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Now 500 more at Kellogg in London.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Engaging a lawyer is often the right way to go and very very seldom will the costs come anywhere close to $25k. In my case it was a $5k fee from a lawyer at one of the top firms. And I got that back many times over in an increased settlement plus I deducted the fees from taxable income.

Your employer is always reluctant to go to court. It typically means that they also have to hire outside counsel. This is a well trodden path and the general parameters of a settlement are well known. 

The employer will often try to low ball you on the first offer. A lawyer will often help to speed through the process and get to a reasonable settlement. This has been my experience from being on both sides of the fence. I would never go with contingency either. Always fee based.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

SW Ontario has been getting killed for years now… Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham, St. Thomas… etc… all hit really hard over the past couple of decades...


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags, more gunpowder for you...

_*Canada Goose bought by U.S.-based Bain Capital - Former Mitt Romney firm buys winter jacket maker*_

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-goose-bought-by-u-s-based-bain-capital-1.2458501


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

Canada post to cut 8000 jobs. Price of stamps going up. It's on cbc

No more door to door delivery
5 years


----------



## Doryman (Jul 31, 2013)

So... does anyone think this is signalling something big, like a big dip in the market or something? I'm not sure how to read these things, but when I see multiple large companies downsizing their workforce, it looks to me like they're getting ready to ride out some bad financial storms.

I could definitely be wrong, though. Any thoughts?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Garth Turner addressed this on his blog.

Here is a quote and a link.

_Last month 21,400 jobs were created in all of Canada, but 28,000 were lost. Of the new ones, the vast majority were part-time positions. So far in 2013, the pace of job creation has dropped 50% from last year. We need at least twenty thousand net new jobs a month to keep up with the new kids, but have been running at only 60% of that level. Unemployment among those 24 or younger is 14%. In Ontario, 17%.
_

http://www.greaterfool.ca/

What happens is lower spending, lower corporate revenue, lower stock values.......and possible deflation.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Doryman said:


> So... does anyone think this is signalling something big, like a big dip in the market or something? I'm not sure how to read these things, but when I see multiple large companies downsizing their workforce, it looks to me like they're getting ready to ride out some bad financial storms.


There are possible signs. Consumer demand is down [and shows signs of decreasing further], yet consumer debt levels are still among record levels. Wages have been stagnating and the cost of living continues to increase [some may argue that inflation is very low, but CPI excludes many items we consume regularly]. As a result, many are not in a position to pay down their consumer debt. To add to the equation, housing prices continue to increase, and now the cost of rent in many cities is beginning to follow suit. The portion of income allocated to servicing mortgage debt and other housing expenses, for most [in Canada], has never been higher. Many can't _afford_ to increase consumption. As a result, companies sell less. When companies sell less, they take measures to maintain a lean operation [layoffs, restructuring, outsourcing, etc.]. What I find ironic through all this is companies are sitting on large amounts of cash [larger than historical averages] and corporate investment in general is still at very low levels.

Now, this is just my take on the economy. While the economy can impact the markets, they are far from perfectly correlated. The less-than-rosy economic picture I have painted will have the greatest impact on your average Joe. Average Joes, individually and arguably collectively, are a drop in the bucket that is the market. The elite, the 0.1%, the whatever-you-want-to-call-them, they have control over the majority of the assets that influence the markets. This class has more wealth than ever before, and the rate of growth shows no signs of stopping. This increase of wealth can continue to drive the markets higher, despite the average consumer's financial position declining.

You may notice that one point contradicts the other in terms of whether the market is poised for a big dip. But the fact is that these indicators are contradictory. No one [at least I don't] really knows how to predict these things with certainty.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

^+1


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

Canadian said:


> There are possible signs. Consumer demand is down [and shows signs of decreasing further], yet consumer debt levels are still among record levels. Wages have been stagnating and the cost of living continues to increase [some may argue that inflation is very low, but CPI excludes many items we consume regularly]. As a result, many are not in a position to pay down their consumer debt. To add to the equation, housing prices continue to increase, and now the cost of rent in many cities is beginning to follow suit. The portion of income allocated to servicing mortgage debt and other housing expenses, for most [in Canada], has never been higher. Many can't _afford_ to increase consumption. As a result, companies sell less. When companies sell less, they take measures to maintain a lean operation [layoffs, restructuring, outsourcing, etc.]. What I find ironic through all this is companies are sitting on large amounts of cash [larger than historical averages] and corporate investment in general is still at very low levels.
> 
> Now, this is just my take on the economy. While the economy can impact the markets, they are far from perfectly correlated. The less-than-rosy economic picture I have painted will have the greatest impact on your average Joe. Average Joes, individually and arguably collectively, are a drop in the bucket that is the market. The elite, the 0.1%, the whatever-you-want-to-call-them, they have control over the majority of the assets that influence the markets. This class has more wealth than ever before, and the rate of growth shows no signs of stopping. This increase of wealth can continue to drive the markets higher, despite the average consumer's financial position declining.
> 
> You may notice that one point contradicts the other in terms of whether the market is poised for a big dip. But the fact is that these indicators are contradictory. No one [at least I don't] really knows how to predict these things with certainty.


Of course demand is down… everyone seems to be carrying a $10 million mortgages…


If anything is going to crash it's housing.

And it's the "average joe" that shops at Wal-Mart and eats at McDonalds….


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

It's all perceptions I guess. I think 2014 is going to be the best year for Canada's economy since 2007.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

That's relative performance, though. The Canadian economic environment was pretty poor during 2008 and 2009. From 2010 until present it has improved, but its performance could be described as "luke warm" at best. Not to say the best relative performance since 2007 isn't a good thing. But the economy has been lacking strong absolute performance for quite a few years.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Siwash said:


> If anything is going to crash it's housing.


Not necessarily. You need to look at who continues to buy houses at these prices. The face of the housing purchaser in Canada is changing. Those condos popping up everywhere in Toronto and Vancouver? They're not being bought by your middle-class citizens or even business professionals. Property ownership by wealthy Chinese, Russian, European, etc., individuals has increased significantly over the past few years. There are even "rumours" that an astonishing number of condos have been purchased to launder money. I doubt we'll see any sort of housing crash like the US experienced in 08-09. Demand by non-Canadians remains strong and that is what is keeping many less-wealthy Canadians from entering the housing market. I'm not arguing the debt levels are not dangerous. Of course, with frequent layoffs, many in such sectors and jobs should be concerned with the size of the mortgage they have signed. But I don't believe the situation is dire. I believe it will suppress consumer demand for the foreseeable future.

Now, if those wealthy non-residents flood the Canadian housing market in a "hot money" fashion and recognize their gains only to find the next appreciating market, that is another story...


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

Canadian said:


> That's relative performance, though. The Canadian economic environment was pretty poor during 2008 and 2009. From 2010 until present it has improved, but its performance could be described as "luke warm" at best. Not to say the best relative performance since 2007 isn't a good thing. But the economy has been lacking strong absolute performance for quite a few years.


Yes, agreed. My point was countering the narrative of things getting worse. I think they will get better. No qualifiers needed beyond that in my opinion.


----------



## Canadian (Sep 19, 2013)

Do you think things will be improved across the board, or specific areas? I.e., new construction, infrastructure renewal, consumerism, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And we all hope you are right........Longwinston, but momentum seems to be carrying us downstream.

In Ontario, a hub of farmland production, we are having difficulty maintaining a "food" manufacturing base.

Not just Heinz and Kelloggs have disappeared, but also Bicks, McCormicks and other food processors have closed up shop.

When you can't manage to "value add" to the products that you sit right in the middle of............something is clearly wrong.

* It should also be noted, that the Chinese have bought, and are trying to buy as much farmland in Ontario, and out west.........as they can do so "under the radar". They are travelling the globe........from Australia to Africa to the Americas..........in search of productive farm land.

When foreign governments own the land, they control the produce.

There are some situations where "foreign investment" just isn't a good thing.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-in-ontario-create-1700-jobs/article15944886/



> Cisco Systems Inc. is making a major bet on Ontario, with investment plans for up to $4-billion to build research and development facilities that will create up to 1,700 high tech jobs in the coming years.


Creative Destruction.


----------



## rknigh2 (Jun 5, 2012)

sags said:


> And we all hope you are right........Longwinston, but momentum seems to be carrying us downstream.
> 
> In Ontario, a hub of farmland production, we are having difficulty maintaining a "food" manufacturing base.
> 
> ...


They're looking for any way to offload those USDs into hard arrests. Tough to sell trillions of dollars without anyone noticing. Their treasury purchases have dried up quickly.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I read that China had locked up a lot of Australia's resources, and slowly added "shipping" to their portfolio.

They are very patient, and gather up things progressively one at a time.

It isn't often.........or ever.........that you hear of a Chinese company ever selling anything.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

The Canadian $ is the biggest problem. If you are high cost producer your plant is in trouble.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Canadian said:


> Do you think things will be improved across the board, or specific areas? I.e., new construction, infrastructure renewal, consumerism, etc.


I live in Vancouver - and I am amazed at how much construction is going on here - What seem like perfectly good bungalows are being knocked down at a race pace here, and being replaced with 3-4 level homes - gorgeous homes. The construction on West Broadway Ave is also going nuts. Entire blocks are being purchased by developers, knocked down and condos builts above store front shops & businesses. Not sure where thi money is coming from, but I think Asian money is driving a large part of it.


----------



## WillyA (Apr 14, 2011)

Longwinston said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-in-ontario-create-1700-jobs/article15944886/
> 
> 
> 
> Creative Destruction.


Well its good news, its been all layoff announcement the last few months so it can't hurt to hear some hiring news


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

WillyA said:


> Well its good news, its been all layoff announcement the last few months so it can't hurt to hear some hiring news


Yes, agreed. Except for the premier throwing too much money at Cisco, but I will try not to quibble.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

Oldroe said:


> The Canadian $ is the biggest problem. If you are high cost producer your plant is in trouble.


Unions, socialism and burdensome regulatory framework kills capital. Canada and Ontario in particular are going down the wrong path…

The liberals are destroying ontario.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 1, 2013)

WillyA said:


> Well its good news, its been all layoff announcement the last few months so it can't hurt to hear some hiring news


Swiss company Novartis (pharmaceuticals) is shutting down its Mississauga plant… hundreds laid off… so more bad news.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

That Cisco deal...I was a little bit surprised when that announcement first hit the newswires on Fri.
But when I read the news, found out that the provincial govt. is "contributing" $220M.

This is an effort by the minority, beleaguered Ontario Liberal govt. - dogged by scandal after scandal - to "buy" some good news.
Bribe some large corporation to announce some new jobs.

They did the same in 2009 with the auto sector bailouts.
After about 3 years, once the bribe money ran out, one by one both the auto companies started closing plants and laying off workers.

If we want to do State Capitalism, why don't we raise taxes for everyone and create a "Buy Jobs" fund to bribe large corporations to come here and "hire" thousands of workers.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Unions, socialism, and regulation that keep our workers and citizen safe were here before the finical crisis. We are victim of our success. We didn't get hurt because our bank system was strong. Our dollar went to even money with the US dollar.

That put our manufactures into the high cost producer and now the price.

General Motors just a noticed they will be pulling out of Australia. Why AUS dollar strong makes them high cost producer.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Oldroe said:


> General Motors just a noticed they will be pulling out of Australia. Why AUS dollar strong makes them high cost producer.


http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ho...lian-exit-is-a-good-thing-20131214-2zdvv.html

Holden: The car maker's Australian exit is a good thing



> Thank goodness Holden is finally leaving Australia. The pain is over and no longer will ordinary Australian taxpayers and small business people have to pay to keep Holden going.
> Yes, unions are crying ''What about the poor workers!'' Poor workers? These are privileged workers.
> 
> The base rate for Holden production workers is about $80,000 a year. Add to that overtime and bonuses and Holden workers' pay is well over $100,000. That compares with Australians working on modern awards whose base pay is in the $40,000 a year range.
> ...


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Just typical crap from a stake holder that uses lose facts to push his agenda.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Oldroe said:


> Just typical crap from a stake holder that uses lose facts to push his agenda.


So, 'their' opinion is crap, whereas 'our' opinion is 100% valid? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Now you understand


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

More bad news for our area..........

The McDonalds chicken nugget supplier (Cargill.....formerly Cuddy) ......is laying off 40 - 100 employees, due to technology.

They are replacing the chicken de-boners, with machines that do the job.

The machines will decide what chicken parts will go into a McNugget in the future.

http://www.am980.ca/2013/12/16/report-cargill-to-layoff-between-40-100-employees-at-london-facility/


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> The McDonalds chicken nugget supplier (Cargill.....formerly Cuddy) ......is laying off 40 - 100 employees, due to technology.
> They are replacing the chicken de-boners, with machines that do the job.
> The machines will decide what chicken parts will go into a McNugget in the future.


sags, now you are being a *Luddite*.

What other technology would you like to rollback?
The computer? The calculator? The typewriter? The internal combustion engine?

We can all go back to 10,000 BC.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> sags, now you are being a *Luddite*.
> 
> What other technology would you like to rollback?
> The computer? The calculator? The typewriter? The internal combustion engine?
> ...


LOL........I think I am a Luddite........

I view the advancement of technology with a cautious eye.

Technology has come at a cost, both in human and environmental terms.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Luddite...We can all go back to 10,000 BC.


Too funny! I wouldn't mind going back a lil, just not that far back.

There are those that actually don't feel comfortable with technological advancements because it can do better work than them [us], and yes, replace us as well. 

Sags is just waiting to announce the lay-offs from AMZN & GOOG, after the army of robot companies they have been snapping up! :biggrin:

There are pros and cons, but the world will continue to evolve, and we have to adapt accordingly, whether we like it or not, because there is no turning back.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Amazon is working on drones to deliver packages............

Honey, the UPS drone is here...............


----------

