Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39

Thread: Riding your OD to Canadian Optical Franchise Dominance in 10 Easy Steps

  1. #26
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Toronto
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post
    Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).

    And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.

    I don't care what Wiki says.
    Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?

    It's pretty easy to find examples of where have-nots direct their anger at haves, and not just at policy makers.

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by eastgtaod View Post
    Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?
    You can be mad at whoever you want. But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list. You should also expect a government to prioritize what is best for their citizens. One did what was expected of them, and one did not.
    Last edited by NAICITPO; 04-05-2023 at 06:20 PM.

  3. #28
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Toronto
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post
    But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list.
    Yes. But I think you've been arguing more than this. That money acquired in ANY (legal) fashion is ethical because it benefits shareholders.

    In this case, it's about almost a hundred million in tax dollars intended for businesses in dire need, whisked away by a foreign company valued in the billions. Legal yes. Morally correct? More like morally bankrupt.

  4. #29
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:21 PM.

  5. #30
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:21 PM.

  6. #31
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:21 PM.

  7. #32
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    They took money the government freely offered. They legally used it for the purposes the government wanted them to use it for, to stay open and keep Australian's working during the pandemic. They or any other company were under no obligation to give money back to the government, this was not a loan but a grant. Who knows what could've happened to the Australian economy if a clawback provision had been in place and many companies decided not to take the funding? I've taken maybe 4 college economics classes in my life--I only know enough about it to understand how much I really don't know about it.

    I do know that Payroll accounts for approximately 70% of a business's operating costs, so if the government gave a big grant to keep Australia open I wonder how many other companies posted a profit because of this program? In the US we get to see the balance sheets of publicly owned companies, I am not sure if that is the case in Australia. So that makes me would wonder how many small businesses made a profit too?

    You can see the payroll accounting for a majority of operating costs here:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...umped/12623176

    https://www.theguardian.com/australi...itive-earnings

    "The ASX300 companies were responsible for claiming just 3% of the $83bn of wage subsidies on offer in 2020, suggesting large public companies are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to companies banking subsidies."


    We get it, you hate Specsavers...
    Last edited by NAICITPO; 04-24-2023 at 12:37 PM.

  8. #33
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:21 PM.

  9. #34
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by optio View Post
    The issue we're discussing, is whether the word "controversial" can be applied to what happened. That's it. Is it reasonable that Wiki describes it as a "controversy".

    Who benefitted from that 90 million dollar tax expenditure? Certainly not the tax payers as it came out of their pockets. Certainly not the government as it didn't go to any public works. What about Specsavers franchisees - did it benefit them? Well no. They took the hit on their reputation for receiving the money, but they didn't even benefit from the payout - it was offshored to head office. So even they didn't benefit.

    90 million Australian tax dollars spent and nothing to show for it. It went to the pocket of a billionaire. In Canada, there was an ethics probe of a Liberal MP because of a contract worth $17,000.
    (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trad...ules-1.6192820)

    So again, I'm not asking you to deem what happened illegal. What we're arguing needs to clear a much lower bar. 90 million dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Wiki deems it a controversy. You don't even have to agree with it, but is the use of the word reasonable or unreasonable?
    Is it a controversy? Sure. We are debating it right now, so it is controversial. But I don't care that you or wiki finds it controversial. I don't put anymore weight on wiki finding it controversial than you finding it controversial or anyone else.

    90 million and nothing to show for it? The economy didn't collapse, that was the idea of jobsavers in the first place was it not?

    The ASX300 companies they were only responsibile for 3% of the 83 billion of wage subsidies. Which means pretty much all business, not just foreign business got profits. You can see from here that through September 2020, during the height of the pandemic, profits for companies were up 14.9%.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...umped/12623176

    And again it is really not difficult math to understand. If 70% of a business's operating cost is payroll and the government is paying that you can run incredibly lean and make profits.

    Why aren't people calling for all the small businesses that showed a profit to also send back the wages subsidies too? Why are you so up in arms about the 90 million Specsavers got when there's another $82,910,000,000 out there sitting in the pocket books of business owners?

    Again we get it, you hate Specsavers...

  10. #35
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:20 PM.

  11. #36
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    What did they have to do to GET the 90 million? They had to stay open during the pandemic and continue employing people. That was the whole reason for the jobsavers provision in the first place, to keep people working and the economy afloat during the pandemic. That is not nothing.

  12. #37
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alberta
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    97
    removed
    Last edited by optio; 04-27-2023 at 09:20 PM.

  13. #38
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by optio View Post
    That's exactly it. The Jobsavers provision was to save jobs in Australia. It wasn't intended to line the pockets of a foreign billionaire.


    But you do allude to something else. Of course you can sit back and say, "Well, in the big picture, Specsavers has been helpful to the Australian economy as a whole, despite that 90 million-dollar black hole." That I'm not going to argue. But narratives are important. We live in cancel culture. There's a lot of people and things that get cancelled, despite their overall benefit to society. It is what it is. We remember what you do wrong, not necessarily what you do right, especially when it comes to tax subsidies, wealth inequality, and offshoring of public dollars.
    Does Specsavers operate stores in Australia? And are the people who work in those stores Australians? And if they are, could you call the jobs they work at 'Australian jobs'?

    I don't understand why where the money goes afterwards is relevant?

  14. #39
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    538
    Why remove your posts? Did you get a job at Specsavers??

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. anyone own an optical and or franchise? need advise
    By v8 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-27-2012, 10:03 PM
  2. Want to open new Optical shop, thinking of going with a Franchise
    By Dana7Wheel in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 01:29 PM
  3. Franchise vs. Independent Optical
    By eoptics in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 06:20 PM
  4. Transitions Optical Steps Up Eye Health Education
    By Steve Machol in forum Optical Industry News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-03-2004, 09:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •