Talk:The Beer Store/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Comment
If/when did the ownership percentages of the BRI change to thirds? Where is the source for this?
I think stating the ownership structure of the Brewers Retail is important. Stating that it is a foreign owned cartel is also important. rasblue
- I concurr. Cafe Nervosa | talk 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My view the bear should be allowed to sold at convenience stores too. Why Brewers should allowed to sell products like hats and t shirts and Souveniers. Permod Goyal
- I concurr, but you should take your cause up with your local representatives. Cafe Nervosa | talk 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Bias
Like the article for the LCBO page, this entry suffers from a distinct anti-Beer Store bias. There is an entire section devoted to criticism of the Beer Store, but little mentioning the obvious benefits of the entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- What "obvious" benefits are you referring to? Or do you have some well paying dogf***er job there that I'm not aware of?
- Well, for one, better control of alcohol distribution to minors is a major societal benefit provided by regulated distribution. While not perfect, it is much more difficult for juveniles to obtain alcohol in Ontario than in neighbouring jurisdictions (like Michigan for example) where alcohol is sold just about everywhere.
- This article completely lacks a neutral point of view, it is virtually an anti-BRI screed, and needs serious attention to correct this. 69.159.218.210 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think this entire section could be removed. None of it is cited, contains any Wikilinks, and is 99% anti-Beer Store. tyx (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed a lot of the anti-Beer Store bias in the "Company claims" section, changing the title to "Store Information". I was sure not to remove any information from the text; just the negative bias (beginning sentences with "The Beer Store claims to...", etc). The "Criticism" section should be cut way down, and an "Advantages" section should be added to showcase the advantages to such a system. M.Nelson (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
History
I was wondering if anyone has the links pointing towards each parties official policy towards the Brewers Retail. rasblue 07:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, someone needs to find updated sources of information regardin the political parties' standings, as the article still said "opposition parties", and refered to the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats. The Progressive Conservatives became the leadiing party in 2006, so this information is obviously outdated. --Reaper X 16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The PCs became the leading party in 2006? What the hell are you talking about? 65.94.109.123 02:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I actually tried to find the official stance of the various parties in regards to the Brewers Retail. Easier said than done. With the Liberals it seems obviously they stand for the status quo. No if that is because they ideologically support it, or if its because of "persuasive" lobbying I do not know. The NDP doesn't have an opinion on their site. Neither do the Progressive Conservatives. rasblue 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The PCs became the leading party in 2006? What the hell are you talking about? 65.94.109.123 02:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Article deviates from topic
A large, Class 5 moving van can easily carry roughly 10,000 bottles or cans of beer from Quebec[5], purchased for about $4,000 less than Beer Store prices (or perhaps even more with discounts)
This article is supposed to be about The Beer Store, and not so much how someone can save money by buying their beer in a different province. I am removing this unrelated babble. 65.94.109.123 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Company type
It is true that BRI is privatized, because it isn't owned by the government. That is clearly what they mean on their webpage [1]. BRI is clearly not a privately held company as we have described in the relevant Wikipedia article. That would mean that BRI is owned by a very small number of shareholders and neither its shares nor those of any of its parent compnies are traded publicly in any manner whatsoever.
With BRI that is not true. When describing company type in the infobox the "legal status of its owners" is actually the most relevant factor. No, you cannot go onto the Toronto Stock Exchange and buy shares in BRI directly. However, you can buy shares in Inbev, Molson Coors and even Sapporo Breweries. Buy shares in any of those firms and you will have a stake (however small) in BRI. How can such a firm be rationally described as "privately held" in the same sense as, say, Mars, Inc. or Cargill? Because the shareholders are publicly-traded they have pretty much the same reporting requirements for their subsidiaries (incliding BRI) as they do for the rest of their operations. Private companies do not operate that way.
The most accurate description I can think of for BRI is "joint venture", but perhaps "privatized joint venture" would be a better description considering that privatized alcohol monopolies are not the norm.
A few other joint ventures and subsidiaries are being inaccurately described as "privately held companies" in their infoboxes (I plan to start corrections immediately), but most are described correctly in their infoboxes.
Rupertslander, December 26, 2007 19:39 UTC
NPOV and mostly unsourced section?
The Brewers Retail today section and, its two subsections, Company claims and, Criticism read like reports of managment - labour disputes combined with Ontario Provincial political party positioning. The following quote is especially partisan and completly unsourced.
The amount of empty returns some stores receive is extremely overwhelming and is hurting worker efficiency as well as the cleanliness of the store. Employees have to deal with very hazardous conditions and the amount of glass dust build up is severely detrimental to anyones health, be it employee or customer. Separating sales and returns into separate stores is probably the only way to help the growing problem of reduced sales and upset and unhealthy workers. The UFCW has been asked to demand these changes when its collective bargaining agreement with BRI comes up for renewal, its position is not yet known.
The Brewers Retail today section/subsections need to NPOV'ed and references provided.--TGC55 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)