I had an interesting exchange with an assitant manager today I was returning 3 bottles of wine (2 - 2004 DOminus and 1- 2005 Ornellaia) and picking up 3 - 2001 ROberto Voerzio Brunate The assistant manager said that they are going to stop doing returns without reciepts as there are too many high end wines being taken back. My issue is that the policies don't seem to be consistent as a friend of mine tried to take back a 2004 Haut Brion a month ago and was told that they would mail him a check for the amount. They took his bottle and now, almost a month later he still has nothing... I also get scowls from the LCBO staff whenever I bring back a wine like I am some crook. Is anyone else getting pissed off with the terrible customer service? We are some of their best customers and we get treated like sh*t.....really pisses me off I was thinking abou writting Tom Wilson but not sure that will do any good....another great day buying wine from the soviet licqour system.
Your friend gave them back a bottle of Haut Brion with the promise of a cheque in the mail??? Wish him good luck on that one. I've never heard of that before. The store couldn't credit his credit card?
As for the LCBO changing its return policy, I wouldn't be surprised. Eventually you know they'll hire someone with a brain, who will recognize the policy of allowing people to return a wine and then going right over to the shelf and buying back the same wine on sale, is quite simply, retarded.
I've always been amazed at any store that accepts the return perishable items, including wine. How do they know what the wine has been through while it's been in private hands for however many months since purchase? Worse, how does the next person who buys that same bottle know what the wine has gone through?
It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Originally posted by mitPradikat: I've always been amazed at any store that accepts the return perishable items, including wine. How do they know what the wine has been through while it's been in private hands for however many months since purchase? Worse, how does the next person who buys that same bottle know what the wine has gone through?
It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
I don't disagree with you that it is a crazey policy but the fact remains that it is their policy and frankly one of the only good things about buying wine at the LCBO.... If we don't have the ability to return wines that we no longer want, then what is the 33% LCBO markup for??? to pay the 700 LCBO employees who make more than $100,000....or the cashier that makes $20/hour? I am just so tired of gettin screwed on prices and then having the staff act like i am doing something wrong by adhering to their policies....
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Originally posted by steve8: Your friend gave them back a bottle of Haut Brion with the promise of a cheque in the mail??? Wish him good luck on that one. I've never heard of that before. The store couldn't credit his credit card? ...
From lcbo.com (http://www.lcbo.com/products/returningproducts.shtml) re returns: ...at the manager's discretion, your refund may be issued in the form of a cheque from the LCBO's Accounting Department, located at our head office.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Canada: .... If we don't have the ability to return wines that we no longer want, then what is the 33% LCBO markup for??? to pay the 700 LCBO employees who make more than $100,000...
I am not sure privatization would result in lower prices. Is the beer store in Ontario not privatley owned? A 12 pack of Corona cost me almost $30 the other day at the beer store. The ontario wines at the private resellers in supermarkets do not have cheaper prices either. Maybe there would be better sale prices ... but we would also loose the return policy. The government would still take their share. I hate paying $20 for California wine that retails for $6.99 in the US as much as anyone but I do not think that privatizataion would come with a reduction in tax (exise, liquor, GST, PST,HST etc) and would likley reduce inventory selection, at least on a store to store basis.
Originally posted by Sweatred: I am not sure privatization would result in lower prices. Is the beer store in Ontario not privatley owned? A 12 pack of Corona cost me almost $30 the other day at the beer store. The ontario wines at the private resellers in supermarkets do not have cheaper prices either. Maybe there would be better sale prices ... but we would also loose the return policy. The government would still take their share. I hate paying $20 for California wine that retails for $6.99 in the US as much as anyone but I do not think that privatizataion would come with a reduction in tax (exise, liquor, GST, PST,HST etc) and would likley reduce inventory selection, at least on a store to store basis.
Then are you suggesting we should let the government keep control of distribution and sales? I'd love to know where your argument is heading?
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Please explain to this confused capitalist how a government run monopoly is a "business"?
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6948 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Please explain to this confused capitalist how a government run monopoly is a "business"?
It is a legally-legitimized entity that provides a good/service (in this case both) to a consumer in exchange for legal tender or store of value. Just because it's a poorly-run, state-owned business doesn't mean it's not a business; a state-owned monopoly, though, is at odds with free market capitalism, but that's a whole different topic... The John Galt / Dagny Taggart models is unfortunately not welcome here .
Posts: 413 | Location: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Please explain to this confused capitalist how a government run monopoly is a "business"?
You are a confused capitalist indeed. The LCBO owns stores that sell us liquor and wine, we buy from them, and they walk away with the proceeds. That is a business. What we are complaining about is who owns the business!
You are a confused capitalist indeed. The LCBO owns stores that sell us liquor and wine, we buy from them, and they walk away with the proceeds. That is a business. What we are complaining about is who owns the business![/QUOTE]
No, you are the confused capitalist. Capitalist systems don't have the government owning retail establishments. Government isn't a business...its a vacuum.
Originally posted by Pinotlvr: No, you are the confused capitalist. Capitalist systems don't have the government owning retail establishments. Government isn't a business...its a vacuum.
But...what about the U.S.' recent investments in the Banking and Auto sectors...awww never mind.
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Please explain to this confused capitalist how a government run monopoly is a "business"?
It is a legally-legitimized entity that provides a good/service (in this case both) to a consumer in exchange for legal tender or store of value. Just because it's a poorly-run, state-owned business doesn't mean it's not a business; a state-owned monopoly, though, is at odds with free market capitalism, but that's a whole different topic... The John Galt / Dagny Taggart models is unfortunately not welcome here .
Uhhhhhh..... no. That's just a taxation system.
Any you call yourself "The Economist".
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6948 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
Originally posted by Sweatred: I am not sure privatization would result in lower prices. Is the beer store in Ontario not privatley owned? A 12 pack of Corona cost me almost $30 the other day at the beer store. The ontario wines at the private resellers in supermarkets do not have cheaper prices either. Maybe there would be better sale prices ... but we would also loose the return policy. The government would still take their share. I hate paying $20 for California wine that retails for $6.99 in the US as much as anyone but I do not think that privatizataion would come with a reduction in tax (exise, liquor, GST, PST,HST etc) and would likley reduce inventory selection, at least on a store to store basis.
Then are you suggesting we should let the government keep control of distribution and sales? I'd love to know where your argument is heading?
I am not a fan of the monopoly yet I am not 100% sold on privatization lowering costs and increasing product selection. I picture several smaller stores selling very common products with a few specializing in high end products. I anticipate that stores like Costco & Loblaws would carry well priced decent wine (US model). But the volume they moved would limit the high end specialty stores sustainability in markets other than Toronto. The Costco's in the US that I have visited have had great prices but less selection.Would Costco in Hamiliton or Ottawa be the best place to buy wine in those cities? The government will still want their taxes and profits so really we are talking about squeezing the employess at the LCBO + head office to generate efficiencies and savings.
If we are talking a change in ownership of the LCBO than I do not challenge the opportunity for savings although it has not materialized at the Beer Store, Vineyards, or any other private retailer in Ontario. I would like to know why Vineyards cannot sell a bottle of Inniskillin any cheaper than the LCBO and how Vineyards' current relationship with the province would be any different than a privatized agent controlling the LCBO in the future. If there is little opportunity for savings and a potential reduction in selection I would rather the excessive profit margins be sent to my provincal tax pool than a private retailer, unless I was that retailer.
Originally posted by mitPradikat: It would be like me bringing raw chicken back to the supermarket because I bought too much for last week's barbecue. Mmm...restocked chicken...
Bit over the top, don't you think? Difference is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on raw chickens ... Oh wait, the goverment does control the supply and pricing of raw chickens through marketing boards ... So maybe they should give me a refund for any unused dead chicken.
(that's why I love this pinko-commie country!)
The sad thing for me is that there are some really good product consultants out there that know there stuff but the other staff simply bring them down....they don't understand that the LCBO is a business and as such they should treat their customers with a little respect.
Please explain to this confused capitalist how a government run monopoly is a "business"?
It is a legally-legitimized entity that provides a good/service (in this case both) to a consumer in exchange for legal tender or store of value. Just because it's a poorly-run, state-owned business doesn't mean it's not a business; a state-owned monopoly, though, is at odds with free market capitalism, but that's a whole different topic... The John Galt / Dagny Taggart models is unfortunately not welcome here .
Uhhhhhh..... no. That's just a taxation system.
Any you call yourself "The Economist".
Sorry, GA, I didn't understand your point about taxation. I guess the wines and spirits are taxed but they're taxed everywhere... what were you referring to?
Posts: 413 | Location: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Originally posted by Sweatred: I am not sure privatization would result in lower prices. Is the beer store in Ontario not privatley owned? A 12 pack of Corona cost me almost $30 the other day at the beer store. The ontario wines at the private resellers in supermarkets do not have cheaper prices either. Maybe there would be better sale prices ... but we would also loose the return policy. The government would still take their share. I hate paying $20 for California wine that retails for $6.99 in the US as much as anyone but I do not think that privatizataion would come with a reduction in tax (exise, liquor, GST, PST,HST etc) and would likley reduce inventory selection, at least on a store to store basis.
Then are you suggesting we should let the government keep control of distribution and sales? I'd love to know where your argument is heading?
I am not a fan of the monopoly yet I am not 100% sold on privatization lowering costs and increasing product selection. I picture several smaller stores selling very common products with a few specializing in high end products. I anticipate that stores like Costco & Loblaws would carry well priced decent wine (US model). But the volume they moved would limit the high end specialty stores sustainability in markets other than Toronto. The Costco's in the US that I have visited have had great prices but less selection.Would Costco in Hamiliton or Ottawa be the best place to buy wine in those cities? The government will still want their taxes and profits so really we are talking about squeezing the employess at the LCBO + head office to generate efficiencies and savings.
If we are talking a change in ownership of the LCBO than I do not challenge the opportunity for savings although it has not materialized at the Beer Store, Vineyards, or any other private retailer in Ontario. I would like to know why Vineyards cannot sell a bottle of Inniskillin any cheaper than the LCBO and how Vineyards' current relationship with the province would be any different than a privatized agent controlling the LCBO in the future. If there is little opportunity for savings and a potential reduction in selection I would rather the excessive profit margins be sent to my provincal tax pool than a private retailer, unless I was that retailer.
Your argument sounds resigned to making the best of a bad thing
The underlieing problem with the current system, regardless who owns it, is that it is not competitive - and that alone guarantees that it is not challenged to operate better. The Beer Store is privately owned, but it doesn't have any competition. I also believe that the Winery-owned stores are prohibited from undercutting the LCBO price (but someone better chime in, since I'm not up to date on this). And they certainly are not allowed to sell any one else's wine. Maybe if other retailers were allowed to import and distribute wine and beer without government interference, then we would have a competitive system there too.
If the government keeps control of distribution (per Alberta), then privatising the retail level won't get you much lower prices - although there is at least the possibility of getting more choice. If you privatise both distribution and retailing, then you should achieve both lower cost and diversity.
It's hard to argue that the LCBO is cost-efficient in its operations. The stores they are putting up rival the Taj Mahal in size and opulence. The union fights tooth and nail to avoid privatisation because many of their members also benefit from not having to compete against the marketplace. And at the same time, the system fails to reward those who really have a valuable expertise. I'd rather have it reflect the motivations and imperfections imposed by the market than have those imposed by a bunch of bureaucrats.
As I understand it (which is very little!) the LCBO has many powers afforded by the ACGO under the Liquor Control Act and it appears that Sweatred is looking very narrowly at only the part where LCBO controls distribution through agency stores or LCBO retail stores in particular. My thinking goes well beyond that.
My view of privatization is the abolishment of most, if not all, powers conferred to LCBO, such as:
* Releasing control of sale and delivery of liquor such that any independent retailer can buy and sell any liquor product they deem worthwhile in whatever quantity they see fit as determined by supply and demand in the free market; and deliver it however they like whether by FedEx or donkey, as long as the person receiving the delivery is authorized (e.g., over 18). * Abolishing LCBO's power to fix prices of any and all liquor, including requiring floor pricing, thereby allowing any 3rd party retailer (e.g., the beer stores, Costco, Mom & Pop stores, etc.) to set their own prices in free market conditions as they see fit. * Eliminating the need for costly laboratory testing and leave quality control in whatever form up to the independent retailers. * Etc.
But this is all moot because there is no will for any degree of privatization presently and in the foreseeable future in Ontario. The general public like things just the way they are and the politicians are enjoying the fruits of this LCBO cash cow.
Originally posted by Stevey: But this is all moot because there is no will for any degree of privatization presently and in the foreseeable future in Ontario. The general public like things just the way they are and the politicians are enjoying the fruits of this LCBO cash cow.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. I'd like to think it is because we have more important issues on our agendas, but in reality, I think it is our passivity that allows this condition to be created and persist. Ultimately, we get what we deserve. That sounds defeatist, but I can't visualise Canadians going to the ramparts to regain control from the politicians?
I can buy a bottle of Mouton in Washington, spend a weekend there (Lodging Cost, food, gas, entertainment all inclusive) and still save money compare to BC LDB price.
Posts: 196 | Location: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Originally posted by Pinotlvr: No, you are the confused capitalist. Capitalist systems don't have the government owning retail establishments. Government isn't a business...its a vacuum.
But...what about the U.S.' recent investments in the Banking and Auto sectors...awww never mind.
There is little doubt our current government plans to exert more and more control over business. Initially this may even be desirable; however, the pendulum never stops at a reason, but swings to excess. Eventually we may lose more than we gain.
Posts: 289 | Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA | Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Wish him good luck on that one. I've never heard of that before. The store couldn't credit his credit card?
.
