Any Business Would Do the Same?

[rsomer]

Tonight on television, Ron Axelson, spokesperson for the Alberta Cattle Feeders responded to the Auditor General’s Report on Excessive Packer Profits which showed that packer profits were 281% higher after BSE than before. When asked about the packers profiting in such a manner while producers were going broke, Axelson was quoted as saying the BSE crisis was not the packers fault and any business would do the same [rip off their suppliers in a time of crisis].

No, Mr. Axelson, any business would not do the same and business is not about ripping off its stakeholders and putting your suppliers out of business to the extent that government has to step in and prop up the industry to the tune of several billion dollars.

Business is about competition not sucking your suppliers dry. Producers need to know that the packer’s behaviour is not acceptable business practice in any shape or form. Business does have responsibilities to its stakeholder group, which includes suppliers and customers and the community at large as well as shareholders. Business is not about kicking the industry when its down just because it can.

The packer’s behaviour since May 20 has been inexcusable and is an example of cross national corporations at their very worst. This behaviour is as a result of the two packers finding themselves without any competition to keep them honest and they surely showed us their true colors when they unfurled the jolly roger and pillaged and burned the very producers that were the backbone of their industry.

Even a parasite knows enough not to kill its host but the packers seemed destined to keep on their immoral ways until there is no industry left.

Does Mr. Axelson believe the packers will not destroy the cattle feeders if he supports the packers misdeeds? Axelson needs lessons in business if he thinks this is acceptable behaviour by a business. And government would never tolerate this kind of behaviour from any other business. Why are they excusing the packers?

There is simply no excuse.

[kato]

The CBC put that story on the news too. If you want to get cattlemen riled up, just show them that one.

But it countered it with a story featuring the Beef Initiative Group. They interviewed Grant Hirsche (sp?), and he did an excellent job.

I saw it on CBC newsworld, but hopefully they will run it on the National.

Watching what the cattle producers had to say made the packers look exactly like the pirates they are.

We may be broke, but at least we can wake up in the morning and like who we see in the mirror.

On a lighter note, they also ran one about how Cargill has adopted a policy of not knowingly slaughtering R-Calf owned cattle. (Knowingly,...that's the operative word). What they said was that some B.C. cattlemen had fronted for the R-Calf members to make the cattle look Canadian owned.

They had Rick Pascal on that one. I guess some of those blockaded cattle from the other week eventually got by, but a bunch are still on feed. Getting fatter and fatter.

I don't really have that much faith in the word of pirate number one, but it's still nice to see life get a little more difficult for our buddies from R-Calf.

[grassfarmer]

rsomer, on a similar note can you explain why Shirley McLellan was flanked by Arno Doerkson when she was responding to this announcement at a press briefing. Are the ABP purely a mouth piece for the Government? What if Shirley had come out with something outrageous that was damaging to every cattle producer in the Province - wouldn't it be the role of the ABP as our producer representatives to stick up for us? I'm confused at the role of the ABP.

[rsomer]

The thing that comes to mind is Arno would have had about 400 million reasons to be supporting Shirley cause that is at least how much money the province kicked in to support our producers.

[rusty1]

That's what you get for following a mennonite into war.

[rusty1]

"Tyson's Lakeside plant almost certainly made more money than Tyson's 10 U.S. plants. It may have made about $40M in operating profits compared to about $26M in the U.S, say analysts. Overall, Tyson's quarterly profits doubled mainly because chicken profits trebled." Steve Kay newsletter

[blackjack]

rusty1... you will have to enlighten me about mennonites... are they yes men...rsomer...was it not recently the members of ABP allowed the feeders to join the board of directors... we might as well put Shirley on the board and then they can be one happy family... heard Ostercamp on QR770 with Dave Taylor... still makes the most sense as anyone out there...

[bombay_43]

What really stuck in my craw, was that he blamed the packers making excess profits by over supply! He claimed it was caused by farmers, "overselling" their cattle, in an attempt to obtain government money!!!

All I want for my birthday, is 2 minutes alone in a locked room with this guy!!!

Every single cow/calf producer I know, has more cattle now than ever before! They did not rush out and sell all their animals in an idle attempt to get BSE dollars!!!

WHAT A CROCK!!!

I'm going to be needing that 1-800 crisis line number!!!

[BFW]

Blackjack, it sounds like you have a problem with feeders being allowed to hold directors positions on the ABP board. It is attitudes like that are largely responsible for the ineffectiveness of the ABP as it exists today. The idea that only "producers" should be involved in making policy for the the beef industry and deciding on how to spend checkoff dollars is both ignorant and arrogant. The "cow-calf man" gives up his right to control the second he sells that calf!

[cakadu]

Truth of the matter was that in order for a producer to get any of that payout he/she/they had to sell in a 2 month window that was dictated by the government. To then turn around and blame the producer for selling into a "down" market is a little over the top, don't you think?

Did the packers take advantage of that? I don't know, you be the judge.

CFRN had an interview with Rod Scarlett of the Wildrose Ag Producers and the soundbite was introduced as him representing cattle producers. That one kind of surprised me. His reasoning was that this system was flawed, but next time they should do it so that everyone can make a profit. Wasn't the point of it to help producers stay viable until they figured out a solution? I'm not sure that there was any intent of producer profit.

Business being what it is, I could see where Mr. Axelson would make those comments as sometimes it is very much a dog eat dog world out there. It DOES NOT mean I agree with him, just I can see where he would make the comments.

I'm not so sure I agree with the Minister's comments regarding whether or not we would have an industry today had the $400 million not been paid. It may have hurt the packers who couldn't ship any beef anywhere and it may also have hurt some of the feedlots (remember the few who took the lion's share), but had that money not been made available under the terms that it was, some producers may not have sold into an oversupply situation. I guess we will never know for sure, will we?

[rsomer]

In the U.S. Enron rips off its stakeholders and its executives get put in jail. Martha Stewart does jail time for her irresponsible behaviour. The packer behaviour we have seen in Canada since May 20 would not be tolerated in the U.S. We all know that. The manner in which the packers have conducted themselves is not normal business behaviour. Most firms conduct their business in an ethical manner, mindful of their responsibilities to their employees, shareholders, stakeholders, even industry. Profits are made by finding efficiencies, developing markets, bringing innovation into the marketplace. The profiteering by the two American packers is not normal business and to suggest it is is an insult to business people everywhere and those that support a free market economy.

[rusty1]

I do have to disagree with something rsomer says. Opening the border may not be a long range solution either. I have in my hand a document that comes right out of a US packing room board room meeting memo. It clearly states that the only US packers that want the border open are the ones that hold most of their interst in the North West. It also states that "1,000,000 head of live fat cattle and 140,000 head of feeders (2001) only represent 2 to 3 weeks of slaughter capacity" for them.

They really don't need us for anything.

So lets close our border from the north side, fix our own problem at home!

[BFW]

I'm with you Rusty1! Close them from our side and that will be all the motivation we need to increase slaughter capacity here.

[rsomer]

Another comment if I may...Clyde Beddows, CEO of Westjet apologized yesterday for the behavoiur of vice president who had resigned over allegations of inappropriate business practices. Beddow’s apology is an example of a responsible corporation that attempts to conduct its business in an ethical manner. Most businesses are ethical.

Yes corporations do exist in a dog eat dog competitive struggle but therein lies the very point. The two packers are not competing. The American packers are conspiring to fix the price paid for fat cattle in an economic crisis created when the U.S. cut our industry off from the competition we depended upon to keep our marketplace functioning. It needs to be said over and over again until the message get through, the actions of the packers do not represent normal business behaviour. Their actions acting as a monopoly are nothing short of collusion and price fixing that should not be tolerated in any free market economy. Whether it is foreign owned packers or any other business such unethical business behaviour should not be tolerated or permitted in this country by either consumers or producers.

Our problem is lack of competition as much as it is oversupply. Until competition is put back into the marketplace the problem will not rectify itself. Until then we cannot just sit back and say the criminal actions of the American packers in this country is normal business practice.

[Horse]

I may be wrong but I think the 2 packers are happy to see the border stay closed because they can use the profits from the canadian plants to fofce the plants in the northwest out of business and have an north american monopoly , sounds devious but doable, or is it just my mind playing tricks again.