this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
532 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
138
Surging Loblaw boycott shows customer anger with grocery giant, says Mount Pearl organizer (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The problem is that the percentage of profits, not just revenue, as indicated by the 15% dividend raise, is increasing which means more is being scraped off the top by Loblaws which isn't from input costs which Loblaws likes to blame but greed.

Revenue and share of profits should be should have steady growth commensurate to inflation at most for an essential service like Loblaws. Really government should treat housing, food, water and energy as essential with better regulation across the supply chain.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The truth is that Loblaws is working as intended within capitalism. They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum. Prices of everything will always increase, otherwise the investors bail and the house of cards collapses. No boycott is going to ultimately change that. They are always playing a game of: "How high can we increase prices today without people rioting?"

What may help is regulating how prices increase or maybe a crown corporation that isn't driven by endless profit.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

This is a myth. (Moreover, it's an American myth.) People need to stop repeating it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The linked article does nothing to characterize the “myth” you imply.

The article simply states that corporations have to represent the “best interests” of shareholders, that “shareholder value” is a common proxy, and that “value” can be many things because different shareholders have different values.

So, shareholders can tell companies to have a different mandate. Sure. That does not eliminate the default which is that the mandate is to make money. About the only default caveat is that it needs to be “sustainable” value which gives management flexibility to act with a longer term view when thinking about brand, reputation, supply-chain stability, employee relations, regulatory risks, legal risks, the environment, and other things that may not directly make money or even cost money in the short term.

All that said, if a company decides ( without direction from shareholders ) to reduce profits voluntarily, they should expect shareholder action in the form of non-confidence ( getting voted out of management ) or even legal action.

If shareholders have not communicated other “best interests”, their best interest is maximizing the value of the shares. That is almost always going to translate to maximizing profit.

I am not taking a moral position or preference on any of the above. Let’s just not be dishonest by suggesting that management obligations to maximize shareholder value is a “myth”. It is not.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Let’s just not be dishonest by suggesting that management obligations to maximize shareholder value is a “myth”. It is not.

Sure, in theory the shareholders could buy shares and insist that the company focus on something other than maximizing shareholder profit.

But in the real world, that's so rare as to be effectively non-existent.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The core argument is that capitalism pushes for this outcome, which your link actually confirms. I also find it a bit odd to claim that "x is a myth" and link to an opinion piece article as if it's a peer reviewed study.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's a link to an article about a legal case where the courts specifically stated this was not the case. In the legal realm, that is the equivalent of a peer review. And absolutely, unfettered capitalism pushes towards this outcome. That doesn't make it a legal requirement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who said it was a legal requirement?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum.

So root comment did.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Needs = laws?

They'll oust a CEO who doesn't fill that need. No legal action required.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I see you read the article. Now we're back at the start and you can continue to go in circles without me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Huh? You claimed that "need" = "law" -- which is clearly nonsense.

That's where we are.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

They don’t have to, but they do anyway.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Downvoting you because this is factually incorrect. They WANT the profit, but it’s not illegal to not make a certain amount of profit, that’s silly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who said it was illegal?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required.

Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT".

No, no incorrect facts were stated.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Capitalism depends on proper competition to function "properly". So of course the goal of every company is to reduce competition so that they can raise prices to infinity.

Loblaw's still has competition, but it is not what it should be. There are a small number of big chains that don't have proper competition in their best interests. If you live in a big city you likely have a few real options but often not really.

The capitalist's answer to this is applying regulation since it has been required to prevent monopolistic behaviour. Or we can ditch capitalism as the model for our society. Or more likely both, one as a short term fix and another for the longer term.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Competitions are meant to be won. The fact that we keep talking about things not working due to a lack of competition points to it being a red herring. The point is to crown a winner, and winners are being crowned.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Can someone chime in? Why aren't there chains of grocery stores run by the government to ensure prices are minimal and people can get food at fair prices? Does any country do that?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Co-ops are better than government run anyways, since the members are the owners, invested members can make the right choices for the store/community/region instead of a blanket provincial/federal policies.

Go to your local co-op.

If you don't have one, make one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Piece of cake, I'll just start a coop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Still doesn't make it easy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you want easy, just pay loblaws a premium to run grocery for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Like most people, that's exactly what I'll do. I already work multiple jobs. Ain't nobody got time to start a coop.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Start a co-op that pays living wages (all the ones I've been a member of do) and you can solve two problems at once.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, I live in a place run by a co-op and it's really just a group of tyrannical old people with nothing to do, who want to control everyone's life and are every bit as greedy as corporations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If it's run by a group of tyrannical old people that can't be usurped, it's not really a co-op.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They can be usurped. Just nobody wants to run it, young residents don't want to be involved or don't have time, so you end up with the old busy bodies with nothing to do running it. They run unopposed a lot

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then you get what you get. we live in a Strata, people complain the council makes decisions they don't like, but nobody steps forward each year at vote time to offer themselves as a new council member.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Correct. At the yearly meetings that include elections, there's like a 25% turnout at most

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I think you found your problem.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

If they did that here, we'd just be hearing about how the government spent 50b on building and "online grocery ordering system" with Loblaws Food Consulting Inc

And the system would be down and crash within 5 days of launch

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because that model has never sustainably resulted in lower prices and higher quality anywhere in the world?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

What country has tried it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Just a random thing. Isn't it crazy Loblaws doesn't accept Amex.

T&T even accepts Alipay and WeChat pay.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

T&T is owned by Loblaws...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Just too expensive for them

Edit: can you imagine being the one that makes the most money, but still too cheap to accept Amex?! Like a millionaire still living in his mom's basement...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Giant Tiger accepts AMEX lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah, I don't blame anyone for not supporting amex.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Amex and credit cards in general are a tax on our society, especially the poor. The wealthy get "rewards" which just come from increased prices to cover the high credit card fees. The less wealthy don't get as much of the extra fees back as rewards but still have to pay the higher prices.

We should strictly regulate credit card fees like the EU has done.