Comments on: The short end of the Canwest stick http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/ Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine. Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chicago movers http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193042 Chicago movers Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:35 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193042 Very impressive comment. If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to at least partially meet their obligations. Very impressive comment.

If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to at least partially meet their obligations.

]]> By: beautiful despair http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193038 beautiful despair Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:32:38 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193038 as always the can(t)west guys are sneeky and the ones that can do something bury their heads. as always the can(t)west guys are sneeky and the ones that can do something bury their heads.

]]> By: SA in Montreal http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193041 SA in Montreal Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:17 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193041 This is such a refreshing article from McLean's! As a labour lawyer representing many unions and individual workers who stand to lose everything while high-level execs get millions, I applaud you for echoing the growing frustration felt by the very people who helped build these companies while those who destroy them get the benefits. This is such a refreshing article from McLean's! As a labour lawyer representing many unions and individual workers who stand to lose everything while high-level execs get millions, I applaud you for echoing the growing frustration felt by the very people who helped build these companies while those who destroy them get the benefits.

]]> By: grey http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193039 grey Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:05:03 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193039 its not a tax..if you wanna call it a tax, then the cable station taxes you like 4dollars a month for tsn etc,example they keep 2 of the dollars, give the other 2 to tsn(or whatever the number is) right now the cable station "taxes" you for cbc, global, ctv, yet they pay those compaines nothing in return... its not a tax..if you wanna call it a tax, then the cable station taxes you like 4dollars a month for tsn etc,example they keep 2 of the dollars, give the other 2 to tsn(or whatever the number is) right now the cable station "taxes" you for cbc, global, ctv, yet they pay those compaines nothing in return…

]]> By: Anonymous http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193040 Anonymous Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:35:56 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193040 The irony, of course, is even more evident when the credits roll on most Canadian programming. Those content creators rely heavily on government subsidies/tax credits to get these productions made. As taxpayers and cable/satellite subscribers, we're getting hit from all sides. The irony, of course, is even more evident when the credits roll on most Canadian programming. Those content creators rely heavily on government subsidies/tax credits to get these productions made. As taxpayers and cable/satellite subscribers, we're getting hit from all sides.

]]> By: Tridus http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193037 Tridus Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:01:30 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193037 Foreign ownership rules need relaxed, yes. We need that in several areas. Coyne posted what we really need a few months ago, though. Fee for carriage (what this is really about) isn't a fix. What kind of system says "you MUST carry these stations, you MUST make all customers get them if they wan them or not, you MUST do simulcast program substition for them, you MUST put them at the best spot on the dial... oh, and you must pay them for the privilege." Now the TV networks want to regulate cable rates too. They want exactly the same thing you accuse the cable companies of wanting: to foist all their own problems on somebody else. Remove their must carry status. Then let them charge fee for carriage. Let people choose to subscribe or not, by mandating per-channel subscription options instead of these ridiculous packages. Then the market will dicate how many of these channels the public actually wants to pay for. Of course that won't happen, Canadian TV is all about spending huge money to piggyback on American shows while trying to claim you deserve special status for being Canadian. Foreign ownership rules need relaxed, yes. We need that in several areas.

Coyne posted what we really need a few months ago, though. Fee for carriage (what this is really about) isn't a fix. What kind of system says "you MUST carry these stations, you MUST make all customers get them if they wan them or not, you MUST do simulcast program substition for them, you MUST put them at the best spot on the dial… oh, and you must pay them for the privilege." Now the TV networks want to regulate cable rates too. They want exactly the same thing you accuse the cable companies of wanting: to foist all their own problems on somebody else.

Remove their must carry status. Then let them charge fee for carriage. Let people choose to subscribe or not, by mandating per-channel subscription options instead of these ridiculous packages. Then the market will dicate how many of these channels the public actually wants to pay for.

Of course that won't happen, Canadian TV is all about spending huge money to piggyback on American shows while trying to claim you deserve special status for being Canadian.

]]> By: Gone Soon Too http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193036 Gone Soon Too Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:08:49 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193036 I would love to hear more about this. Where is that info available? TY I would love to hear more about this. Where is that info available? TY

]]> By: panicbutton http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193035 panicbutton Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:15:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193035 Cable and Satellite providers want to have their cake and eat it too. They assume none of the costs of purchasing or creating content but take all the profits for Canadians to have access. They have overcharged for YEARS and have been allowed to price fix at unprecidented levels. If the CRTC does demand that they compensate the companies tha own the conent they profit from that cost should NOT be passed along to you. Believe me, you overpay for your service and have been doing so for a long time. The Government and CRTC need to permit more foreign ownership or investment in Canadian communications companies. More competition would drive down cable, satellite and mobile phone prices. Cable and Satellite providers want to have their cake and eat it too. They assume none of the costs of purchasing or creating content but take all the profits for Canadians to have access. They have overcharged for YEARS and have been allowed to price fix at unprecidented levels.

If the CRTC does demand that they compensate the companies tha own the conent they profit from that cost should NOT be passed along to you. Believe me, you overpay for your service and have been doing so for a long time.

The Government and CRTC need to permit more foreign ownership or investment in Canadian communications companies. More competition would drive down cable, satellite and mobile phone prices.

]]> By: Tridus http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193034 Tridus Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:08:59 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193034 It's interesting how these execs get $9.8 million at the same time as Global is crying poor over local TV and the CRTC is imposing a tax on all cable/satellite customers to give them more money for local stations. Why don't we just take the $9.8 million and put it there instead? Ah, priorities. It's interesting how these execs get $9.8 million at the same time as Global is crying poor over local TV and the CRTC is imposing a tax on all cable/satellite customers to give them more money for local stations.

Why don't we just take the $9.8 million and put it there instead? Ah, priorities.

]]> By: Steve Lambert http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193033 Steve Lambert Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:41:27 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193033 Here is a little logic the Asper clan may not have counted on..Organized retiree groups who are now fored to fight for their pensions and benefits are going to make your welcome exit from the broadcast scene a long drawn out legal apocalypse, and OFSI is standing behind us 100%. So mark your calendars accordingly, this battle of employees to get what is rightfully theirs is ging to be biblical. Here is a little logic the Asper clan may not have counted on..Organized retiree groups who are now fored to fight for their pensions and benefits are going to make your welcome exit from the
broadcast scene a long drawn out legal apocalypse, and OFSI is standing behind us 100%. So mark your calendars accordingly, this battle of employees to get what is rightfully theirs is ging to be biblical.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193032 Anonymous Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:08:46 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193032 Izzy Asper must be rolling over in his grave to think that the employees with decades of service, who were the backbone of the company he built, have essentially been laid off without severance. As a former Canwest employee, I can attest that the incompetence at mid-to-upper levels of management there was shocking. Izzy Asper must be rolling over in his grave to think that the employees with decades of service, who were the backbone of the company he built, have essentially been laid off without severance. As a former Canwest employee, I can attest that the incompetence at mid-to-upper levels of management there was shocking.

]]> By: Mike T. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193031 Mike T. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:08:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193031 The restructuring process means you can't bring lawsuits. It's what the "protection" in bankruptcy protection is. The restructuring process means you can't bring lawsuits. It's what the "protection" in bankruptcy protection is.

]]> By: bert http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193030 bert Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:13:35 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193030 Time to change the rules. Preferred creditors (1) employees minus executives and board members (2) suppliers (3) investors minus shares doles out to execuitves. Squat to executives and board members who have driven a company into the hole. Don't hold your breath expecting the conservatives or liberals having the intestinal fortitude to take the high road in changing the rules. Time to change the rules. Preferred creditors (1) employees minus executives and board members (2) suppliers (3) investors minus shares doles out to execuitves. Squat to executives and board members who have driven a company into the hole. Don't hold your breath expecting the conservatives or liberals having the intestinal fortitude to take the high road in changing the rules.

]]> By: danby http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193028 danby Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:23:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193028 Nice, isn't it? Most posts are informative and I greatly appreciate the general civility. Quite honestly, people here behave far better than our MP's in parliament. What does that tell you about the state of Canadian politics? Nice, isn't it?
Most posts are informative and I greatly appreciate the general civility.
Quite honestly, people here behave far better than our MP's in parliament.
What does that tell you about the state of Canadian politics?

]]> By: danby http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193029 danby Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:23:16 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193029 Nice, isn't it? Most posts are informative and I greatly appreciate the general civility. Quite honestly, people here behave far better than they do in parliament. What does that tell you about the state of Canadian politics? Nice, isn't it?
Most posts are informative and I greatly appreciate the general civility.
Quite honestly, people here behave far better than they do in parliament.
What does that tell you about the state of Canadian politics?

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193020 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:40:22 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193020 Admittedly it hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring. But isn't that Canwest's intention here? They're paying the execs to carry out the restructure so that the company can continue operations, in which case those lawsuits will impact Canwest's future. Admittedly it hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring.

But isn't that Canwest's intention here? They're paying the execs to carry out the restructure so that the company can continue operations, in which case those lawsuits will impact Canwest's future.

]]> By: Owen http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193027 Owen Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:17:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193027 I'm not sure how severance, etc. ties into this, but I know employee's wages are given a preferred creditor status (in there with rent owing and municipal taxes) so they are supposed to come before any unsecured creditors. I guess severance and benefits aren't covered as wages, or secured creditors already have claim to too much of the available cash. I'm not sure how severance, etc. ties into this, but I know employee's wages are given a preferred creditor status (in there with rent owing and municipal taxes) so they are supposed to come before any unsecured creditors. I guess severance and benefits aren't covered as wages, or secured creditors already have claim to too much of the available cash.

]]> By: Guest http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193026 Guest Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:33:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193026 I just want to point out that your preceding exchange was a civil, informative and well-reasoned discussion with one of the discussants actually recognizing he may have missed something (but also learned something new), and then went on to thank the other person in the conversation. (And I'm *not* being sarcastic). I salute you both - especially Gaunilon - for proving that these conversation threads don't have to be poorly informed, logically inconsistent, high-volume attacks on one another. (For the opposite, see the globe and mail or toronto star, or perhaps a few others, er, following below...). I just want to point out that your preceding exchange was a civil, informative and well-reasoned discussion with one of the discussants actually recognizing he may have missed something (but also learned something new), and then went on to thank the other person in the conversation. (And I'm *not* being sarcastic).

I salute you both – especially Gaunilon – for proving that these conversation threads don't have to be poorly informed, logically inconsistent, high-volume attacks on one another. (For the opposite, see the globe and mail or toronto star, or perhaps a few others, er, following below…).

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193025 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:14:46 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193025 I see. Thanks for the correction. I see. Thanks for the correction.

]]> By: wayne moores http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193024 wayne moores Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:53:53 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193024 Well, I guess it's just another shinning example for the neocons to point to in their bizarro upsidedown world of letting the "market" flourish and governments just get out of the way, privitize everything including prisons and I guess even the sidewalks and everything will be rosie...for the handful of corprate criminals and phycopaths at the top, for everyone else...not so much. Cheers Well, I guess it's just another shinning example for the neocons to point to in their bizarro upsidedown world of letting the "market" flourish and governments just get out of the way, privitize everything including prisons and I guess even the sidewalks and everything will be rosie…for the handful of corprate criminals and phycopaths at the top, for everyone else…not so much. Cheers

]]> By: Thwim http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193023 Thwim Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:42:29 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193023 Except they won't, because then they'll become part of the bankruptcy proceedings, and that's when the employees have to get in line to get anything that's left of the old shell company. Meanwhile, the new company proceeds unencumbered. That's kind of the whole point of bankruptcy protection. Except they won't, because then they'll become part of the bankruptcy proceedings, and that's when the employees have to get in line to get anything that's left of the old shell company. Meanwhile, the new company proceeds unencumbered. That's kind of the whole point of bankruptcy protection.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193022 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:39:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193022 Hmm. Maybe you're right. It hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring. But isn't that Canwest's intention here? They're paying the execs to carry out the restructure so that the company can continue operations. Hmm. Maybe you're right. It hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring. But isn't that Canwest's intention here? They're paying the execs to carry out the restructure so that the company can continue operations.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193021 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:37:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193021 Hmm. Maybe you're right. It hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring. Hmm. Maybe you're right. It hadn't occurred to me that the grievance only occurs on the final payday when vacation/severance are due. In that case the "take it to court" option only works if the company is going to be operational after restructuring.

]]> By: Thwim http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193019 Thwim Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:10:10 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193019 Except employees aren't considered creditors until after they stop getting their pay. They've got nothing to sue for until the company violates their contract, but by the time that happens, the execs will all be paid off and all that will be left is the shell of the bankrupt company. I'm not saying this is right, but it is how it is. Basically, your suggestion of "take it to the courts" simply doesn't work because of bankruptcy protection. Except employees aren't considered creditors until after they stop getting their pay. They've got nothing to sue for until the company violates their contract, but by the time that happens, the execs will all be paid off and all that will be left is the shell of the bankrupt company.

I'm not saying this is right, but it is how it is. Basically, your suggestion of "take it to the courts" simply doesn't work because of bankruptcy protection.

]]> By: Thwim http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193018 Thwim Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:09:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193018 Except employees aren't considered creditors until after they stop getting their pay. They've got nothing to sue for until the company violates their contract, but by the time that happens, the execs will all be paid off and all that will be left is the shell of the bankrupt company. Except employees aren't considered creditors until after they stop getting their pay. They've got nothing to sue for until the company violates their contract, but by the time that happens, the execs will all be paid off and all that will be left is the shell of the bankrupt company.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193017 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:05:36 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193017 <i>"It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."</i> Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. The threat of numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation. "It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."

Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not.

The threat of numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193015 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:05:28 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193015 <i>"It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."</i> Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. The threat of numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation. "It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."

Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not.
The threat of numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193016 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:05:14 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193016 <i>"It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."</i> Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation. "It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."

Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous costly lawsuits may change that calculation.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193014 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:04:56 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193014 <i>"It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."</i> Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous, costly lawsuits may change that calculation. "It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."

Yes, and "employees" includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous, costly lawsuits may change that calculation.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193013 Gaunilon Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:04:36 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193013 <i>"It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."</i> Yes, and that includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous, costly lawsuits may change that calculation. "It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors."

Yes, and that includes high-ranking executives. In this case the company seems to be making a business decision that paying the execs to carry through the "streamlining process" is a worthwhile investment, while negotiating a partial compensation of lower-level employees is not. Numerous, costly lawsuits may change that calculation.

]]> By: Thwim http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193012 Thwim Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:58:35 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193012 You do realize what "bankruptcy protection" means, right? It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors. You do realize what "bankruptcy protection" means, right?
It means employees need to get in line behind all the other creditors.

]]> By: Thwim http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193011 Thwim Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:58:02 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193011 You do realize what "bankruptcy protection" means, right? It means employees need to get inline behind all the other creditors. You do realize what "bankruptcy protection" means, right?
It means employees need to get inline behind all the other creditors.

]]> By: M7Laurie http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193010 M7Laurie Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:55:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193010 Unbelievable! Where do top 'mis-mangement' got off with absolute theft to those who have dedicated years to 'the company' get off with these so called 'bonuses'? I am appalled. For years I worked with 'high end' corporate clients, most of whom were ethical, there were some that I had to fire because of their 'soap box' attitude to those who were working so hard to make their dreams come true. Where's the balance vs. greed? Let these guys live for just a day, or lets make that better, a month, in the shoes of those they've trampled on. Do they forget their roots? Or are they all hand fed spoiled, greedy, uncouthful & selfish people who really don't have a grasp on reality? I'm sick and tired of hearing about all of these supposed 'big wigs' getting money where they clearly don't deserve a dime! We work hard, we are ambassadors for our area and our province, we don't get any handouts, our winters are long and arduous trying to stay warm and keep things going until the next season. We have rather affluent guests from all over the world to our '5-Star Rustic' location ~ know what? ~ they all Love it! But that doesn't make things any easier or cushier for us. They don't have to go through the 'pioneering' lifestyle ~ we operate off of a diesel generator, we haul our own water from a mountain spring, we haul all the hay for the horses ~ now at $100/bale, business was down over 50% this year ~ we don't get any of these 'bonuses', we just get billed and billed for more taxes. We barely get by yet 1000's from all over the world have enjoyed our Western hospitality and have no idea how hard we struggle. Guess we're just 'the little guy' in one of the most beautiful places ~ the Canadian Rocky Mountains. That's all for now ~ the rest would take a book. Unbelievable! Where do top 'mis-mangement' got off with absolute theft to those who have dedicated years to 'the company' get off with these so called 'bonuses'? I am appalled. For years I worked with 'high end' corporate clients, most of whom were ethical, there were some that I had to fire because of their 'soap box' attitude to those who were working so hard to make their dreams come true.
Where's the balance vs. greed? Let these guys live for just a day, or lets make that better, a month, in the shoes of those they've trampled on. Do they forget their roots? Or are they all hand fed spoiled, greedy, uncouthful & selfish people who really don't have a grasp on reality?
I'm sick and tired of hearing about all of these supposed 'big wigs' getting money where they clearly don't deserve a dime!
We work hard, we are ambassadors for our area and our province, we don't get any handouts, our winters are long and arduous trying to stay warm and keep things going until the next season. We have rather affluent guests from all over the world to our '5-Star Rustic' location ~ know what? ~ they all Love it! But that doesn't make things any easier or cushier for us. They don't have to go through the 'pioneering' lifestyle ~ we operate off of a diesel generator, we haul our own water from a mountain spring, we haul all the hay for the horses ~ now at $100/bale, business was down over 50% this year ~ we don't get any of these 'bonuses', we just get billed and billed for more taxes. We barely get by yet 1000's from all over the world have enjoyed our Western hospitality and have no idea how hard we struggle. Guess we're just 'the little guy' in one of the most beautiful places ~ the Canadian Rocky Mountains.
That's all for now ~ the rest would take a book.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193008 Gaunilon Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:53:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193008 If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to at least partially meet their obligations. If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to at least partially meet their obligations.

]]> By: Gaunilon http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/20/the-short-end-of-the-canwest-stick/comment-page-1/#comment-193009 Gaunilon Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:53:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87194#comment-193009 If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to make good on their obligations. If people are being told they won't get vacation pay or severance that was written into their employment contract then they should sue. The company would very quickly decide that a series of expensive lawsuits ending in court-ordered payments is less in their best interest than making a good-faith effort to make good on their obligations.

]]>