Given that the owners of Coke have made some pretty hefty profits from us over the years, I think that perhaps rather than us trying help them out, we should send them a clear message that we are not here to be pushed around, or taken for granted.

I think we should all boycott any products produced and sold by the parent company until they dip into their pockets and save their company.

Good governance is not about providing unconditional handouts to big business.

CocaCola aren't losing any money in Australia, they're just not making as much as they'd hoped. If they let SPC down then they should forfeit all other australian enterprises they have & let Australians take them over. Rescind some of their licences.

Wow, rehctub. I never would have expected a comment like that from someone like you. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Would you boycott Coles if they closed down Bunnings? Or would you rub your hands together and say "Now I can start that hardware store I always wanted"?

I don't quite get your drift RM.

The death of a large tree allows new growth to sprout from beneath the once over powering canopy.

As an entrepreneur, I would have thought you'd see it that way?

stop killing our kids
#
Aspartame, NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure.
THE BITTER..TRUTH ABOUT ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS. Aspartame sugar substitutes cause many killers

[AND THUS coke..SHUTTING DOWN FRUIT..
but keeping fake sweeteners..SPEAKS VOLUMES]
...
#
Bad News about products with Aspartame - Aspartamekills.com http://www.google.com.au/search?q=aspartame+causes+diseases&

RM there was a time, not all that long ago when I would have agreed wit you, but I am afraid those days of taking risks in a small business are all but gone.
sure, there are those who still do very well, but the reallity is, a small business has a better chance of failure than success today and that's a real shame.

Ruined by over regulation and domination from huge multi sector conglomerates.

Boycotting Coke is certainly the healthy choice.
Why would anyone want to drink that black poison anyway?

The problem is that those American bastards also bought other things that are not as bad, such as the rights over the Peruvian national drink, Inca Kola. You should still be able to import Inca Kola directly from Peru where it is not owned by Coke - it's worth trying!

As an entrepreneur, I would have thought you'd see it that way?
RawMustard,
An enterpreneur would yes but a family man trying to feed his lot probably doesn't share such ideology at a time like now.
I can't help thinking if they took money from every director & shareholder in SPC they could possibly come up with the 25 mills themselves.
A company may have to look after its shareholders but shareholders must also look after the company, after all isn't it supposed to be a symbiosis ? Shareholders probably think its a one-way street. Sorry, better luck next time.

< An enterpreneur would yes but a family man trying to feed his lot probably doesn't share such ideology at a time like now. >

As a family man concerned with my families welfare, I took it upon myself to ensure I always had a means to feed my family and provide them with the security I promised to deliver no matter what happened.

Putting your trust in the system and others has always dealt a cruel deal. I always believed it was better to rely on ones self. That way I was in control, I had no one else to blame and no one else to screw me over!

In this day and age, it would appear to me that this philosophy would be a much safer approach to life and security.

I'm sorry, but I have no remorse for those that put their faith and futures in others and lose!

I guess it's how you're brought up?

< but shareholders must also look after the company, after all isn't it supposed to be a symbiosis ? >

No! Share holders invest their own money at risk to make a profit and that's the cold hard reality of it. If it doesn't pay they walk, it's how life's been since time immemorial.

....No! Share holders invest their own money at risk to make a profit and that's the cold hard reality of it. If it doesn't pay they walk, it's how life's been since time immemorial.

RM, this is one of the problems with big business today, the share holders.

You see the share holders are now treated with such importance that all too often much needed reform is overlooked in fear of loosing their working capital.

Unfortunately in most cases the customer is less important, with the banks being a prime example.

Rechtub if one of two butcher shops you once owned was making a loss.
The other a profit would you close one down.
Or cut over all products by using the profits of one to keep both going.
Coke is not the anti Christ here.
It as is the case with many giant international firms owns but runs the SPC as a separate company.
You seem to demand it not act like a profit making business, invest more in a multi million dollar loss firm, because we need that firm
International firms are not Socialist and never on behalf of a country they can do without and still make billions.
Boycott? in truth such a thing is imposable if we can not get Australians to buy SPCA fruit how can we stop them drinking their favorite drink brands.

No! Share holders invest their own money at risk to make a profit and that's the cold hard reality of it.
RawMustard,
Well, then they truly deserve what they get.

Absolutely, Indi. That's why so many are up in arms over the bail outs/bail ins or whatever they call them these days.

But lets not forget, Indi, a lot of these people that invest are normal people like you and I. They've probably worked very hard for their money and are probably in no mood or position to support those that would not support themselves. I see no remorse from those that buy on price. Why should I feel remorse when they lose their jobs?

< RM, this is one of the problems with big business today, the share holders. >

Share holders are only investors risking their own money.

< You see the share holders are now treated with such importance that all too often much needed reform is overlooked in fear of loosing their working capital. >

I see this is as a problem with CEO's and the board. A competent management will have more than enough sway to convince shareholders of needed restructuring. Look at Apple(TM) for an example. They were faced with this problem not too long ago. They put the company first and in so doing, put the concerns of their shareholders and customers first.

< Unfortunately in most cases the customer is less important, with the banks being a prime example. >

I don't believe that, rehctub. Good customers are always looked after and every attempt is made to shed time wasters. I'm sure you operated your own business in much the same manner?
Remember, share holders are customers too!

The whole problem, rehctub, is collective thinking. When you put your trust in others, you have to accept that some may not have your best interest at heart. Co-dependents have always been at the mercy of the charitable. This is the cold hard law of the land and will never change. All these people had a choice, they chose wrong. It is wrong to force others who made the right choices to bail them out.

the problems..OF STOCKHOLDER PROFIT]..ARE CLEARLY REVEALED HERE
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/federal-reserve-tapering-gold-market/

the trouble BEING Most shareholders arNT Living ENTITIES
so again its the dead sukking the life blood from the living

its only too easy ..FOR Monopolies..to play god..it takes money to make money..
AND when you can print aLL The false promises YOU LIKE
its too easy..

[so your the last fruit cannery..in au..?
liquidate..IT IN HOUSE../TO THE growers]..

aNYHOW WE Heard before..how they bias
the reportage..VIA 'JOB NUMBERS'..[SPIN]
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20131220/00174325644/innovation-asymmetry-why-copyright-industry-always-freaks-out-about-new-technologies.shtml

THATS A GREAT monopoly position..TO MAKE FRESH BEGINNINGS FROM
I hear there aRE 1200 GROWERS Directly affected....THATS 20,000..? EACH..?

RM, I do not support the bailout of SPC.

What I do support is for the bosses, the workers and the unions to sit down and come to some arrangement to save this company.

Now if the company is not worth saving, then so be it, that's life. But there is no way we, the general tax payer should pledge our taxes to save the jobs of those who are grossly over paid for what they do.

You shouldn't help anyone who won't help themselves.

Well Rechtub I am on solid ground in challenging your understanding of this issue.
Wages work out comes productivity increases are in no way the trouble here.
Hundreds of thousands , millions in fact of *loss making recent past out comes are*
The brave Local member a Liberal Woman with guts rebutted Abbott,s targeting the above, strongly.
The situation is the plant needs an upgrade to have a chance of surviving.
The request was 25 million from Victorian and federal governments and 90 million from Coke, nothing else.
Now I named Socialist fabian all types of crap know Labor will never win those state and federal seats.
But too that a community voting coalition forever is in real danger and in all truth think we should help.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/02/spc-cadbury-comparisons-unfair-eric-abetz
This link should calm those who blame workers/unions for SPC s troubles.
Do not over look the bravery of this Woman, she has stood for her electorate and truth.
She will be far from the only Lib/Nat to stand against the Abbott/Murdock steam roller.
Watch as the pitiful efforts to not help drought stricken farmers re enters debate about what direction this government is taking.
The baby bonus/socialism for the well off will not go away while others in need suffer.

.....But too that a community voting coalition forever is in real danger and in all truth think we should help

But Belly only a few posts ago you said yourself they were loosing million, if not hundreds of millions.

Why on earth should we chip in $25 million of tax payers money to save a failing business?

There should never be a single cent ever go to support any company paying over award wages, or offering above award conditions.

If making sweetheart deals with unions/workers is good business, the companies will be doing well, be profitable, & the best of British to all of them, I'm all for it

If sweetheart deals are bad business, there is no reason for taxpayers to prop up greedy workers in badly managed businesses.

We saw the abattoirs close all over Oz as bad management gave in to overpaying workers on the quota system.

There are ore bodies all over Oz, no longer mined, as the management gave in to worker demands in the good times, only to go broke when prices came back a bit.

A once thriving coastal shipping industry was killed by excessive wages & conditions demanded by our seamen's union, cheered on by the workforce.

The car industry is dead, although still flapping for a little while. The food processing is likewise dying like an old time case of gangrene. They keep chopping off the dead bits, knowing it will die completely some time soon.

We had to close our wharfs for months to get any sense into labor costs, & conditions, & who would want to become a builder, with the construction industry so full of rip-offs.

There is very little left where the unions have not shat in their nests, & killed the goose. The only eggs left are way past their use by date.

Look at the UK & it's unions in the 70s, & you see our future all laid out. Forget CO2, & Muslim immigration, it is the unions that are determined to kill the west, & they are bloody good at it.

Yes Hasbeen, and the problem has always been that while it's all well and good to demand/comand a premium for ones labour in good times, unions simply won't have a bar of lowering these same conditions when times get tough. It's call take and take, not give and take, even though these conditions were reached at a time when demand for labor outstripped supply.

The board of SPC needs to take a vote from the workers, (unions excluded) and seek approval for a reduction conditions. At least that way the workers, not the union bosses decide the fait of their jons and livelihoods.

Remembering of cause that these workers enjoy far more than the usual benefits and they have had the privilege of these extra ordinary benefits for years. Just hope didn't waste that opportunity.

I leave the conversation after all as this thread degenerates in to a flog the Aussie workers/unionist one what is the use.
Nothing to do with the SPC trouble but like some kids still sucking their thumbs at age seven comfort food/insulting workers is joyful to some, always to those unconcerned by truth.
The bloke next door may well be a worker/unionist we should protest kick him/her out!
Vale my friend rest in peace *the Australian fair go mate is dead* truth in grave danger as a filthy working class unionist I retreat before some one kicks me.

My suggestion it that Cocoa Cola hand the factory over to the workers and fruit suppliers on a percentage ownership of time served / fruit supplied as a cooperative to be owned by the local shareholders and allow them to make a go of it. Profits may not be enough for Cocoa Cola but if income can equal expenditure then all can still be employed. If they are owners then it in their interest to make it work.

Dear Josephus,

Why keep this rotten band-aid?

I will never support these American poisoners. Had I knew that they own SPC, then I wouldn't buy their products in the first place.

If on the other hand, those same producers and employees which used to work for the Americans endeavour to do it by themselves, then I will be happy to support them by buying their products, even if they are a bit more expensive.

Yuyutsu,
If you don't buy SPC you are left no alternative but buy fruit processed in South Africa, NZ, China, Thailand and the EU. The workers and farmers are not the problem so they deserve to have employment and supply of their product to the Australian market; otherwise we end up paying them unemployment relief as their skills are limited.

Dear Josephus,

Firstly, I don't have to buy processed fruit: we can always limit ourselves to fresh fruit in season, though of course we won't get the same variety.

Secondly, I prefer helping South Africa, Thailand and the EU over helping the Americans, especially those bastards who sell us their black poison.

But most importantly, a crisis in the short term will help the Australian farmers in the long term to reorganise, kick those Americans blood-suckers out and start something healthy instead.

There is no need to pay the workers and farmers unemployment benefits as they will most happily continue to work - we only need to give them alternate machinery.

Chances are that once the Americans understand that they are truly unwanted here, they would sell their assets cheaply. Of course I could be wrong and they might deliberately wreck their machines and in revenge sell them as scrap-metal, but I am prepared for that possibility because even then we have the ability to rebuild our own industry from scratch.

Australians do not eat enough fresh fruit to maintain the farms. By canning it it spreads the availability throughout the year and much more fruit can be produced to keep the farms viable. A lot of fresh fruit is brought into Australia when our growing season is finished

Josephus, perhaps those who were happy to take the money when they sold the original Co-opt to Coke should put their hands back in their pocket, & buy the company back.

I guess not, if they had wanted to own the thing, they wouldn't have sold it in the first place. Perhaps they were well advised to get out when they did.

Belly, if the truth hurts, it is not much use sticking your fingers in your ears & running away, in an effort to avoid facing it.

Unless unions wake up, they will destroy all the jobs, just as they have in the industries I highlighted. Just like they did in the UK, there will be little left, as the mines wind down, if no new ones replace them.

On present predictions, new mines will be in Africa & South America. Hell it is more profitable to mine in the US now, even with a ratbag in the white House, than it is in Oz today.

You can't hide from the truth mate. All you can do is correct the problems, of sink out of sight in the mess you create when you ignore it. Yes it hurts like hell when you lance a boil, but it hurts a hell of a lot more if you just let it fester. Make your choice.

Ar running away again I see hey Belly, always playing the victim.

It just goes to show you can take the person out of the union job, but you can't take the union job out of the person. Once a one eyed unionist, always a one eyed unionist. You see things from your side only, no ifs no buts!

I would understand if these workers were being underpaid, but the truth is, they are being over paid when taking the norm into account. It's a pity your pride won't let you see that as it would allow you to participate in these threads longer.

It has just been suggested that these SPC workers are receiving around 58% above industry standard wages and conditions.

The answer is plain and simple. Give a little and save your jobs. Not only that, but the employees have the ability to save the firm that has provided them with their over the top conditions.

As I have said before, the unions have a lot to answer for when it comes to business viability in this country.

It's time to give up some of this over the top conditions they have gained. Way over the top it would seem.

Sorry, but I have no pity for selfish employees who can't see the forest for the trees.

Butch: "It has just been suggested that these SPC workers are receiving around 58% above industry standard wages and conditions..."

Suggested by whom? (a link will do)

Surely not this one:

LIBERAL MP Sharman Stone has accused Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey of "lying'' about the plight of SPC Ardmona.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/blaming-spcs-wages-and-conditions-for-troubles-a-lie-sharman-stone/story-fn59noo3-1226817307657

Cheap imported fresh and tinned fruit is the reason SPC cannot compete in the open market. Consumers are buying imported fruit because of the price and not supporting local producers. Our production costs are too high to compete; and we are supposed to become the international equal by reducing the cost of production.

ozdoc, no link, I heard it on the news last night. Please note, I did say SUGGESTED.

I have also heard that Tony Abbott has requested a copy of the workplace agreement.

It will be interesting to see what comes of that, because after all, if one sticks thier hand out, surely they should be transparent in their quest for assistance.

Now that's not a big ask, is it?

Josephus, in all my years of retail, the results of surveys generally show that while most people vote with their hearts when it comes to buying Australian, the reality is they shop with their wallets, which often results in the cheapest deal.

We are what we are, but one day, perhaps sooner than we think, the gravy train is going to run dry and most will then sit up and take notice, but it will be a case of too little too late.

Butcher,

Anyone can deceive by “suggestion” – just because someone (who you don’t name) suggests something, doesn’t make it so. It would help us all if you base your comments on fact (rather than unconfirmed hearsay or scuttlebutt) and back them up with a reference/link – that's not a big ask, is it?

You say:

“I have also heard that Tony Abbott has requested a copy of the workplace agreement. It will be interesting to see what comes of that, because after all, if one sticks their hand out, surely they should be transparent in their quest for assistance.”

Thing is Butcher, SPC-Ardmona were transparent (despite your assertion to the contrary). They provided a very detailed business case to the government in seeking assistance, as Industry Minister Macfarlane has acknowledged.

Indeed, even Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says this:

"The government did not make a decision based on false information … We had all of the information in front of us, including the information on the enterprise bargaining agreement.”

It’s not me calling Tony Abbott a liar – it’s Dr Sharman Stone (an economist), the Liberal MP for Murray.

Perhaps you (everybody here) should read it again:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/spc-ardmona-rejects-allowance-claims-as-sharman-stone-accuses-pm-of-lying/story-fn59noo3-1226817307657

I do agree when you say: “We are what we are, but one day, perhaps sooner than we think, the gravy train is going to run dry and most will then sit up and take notice, but it will be a case of too little too late.”

Australian manufacturing is in dire straits if they can't get a leg-up from a government who before the election said one thing but after, says and does the complete opposite.

ozdoc, nice try but you will have to try harder to discredit me.

I told you where i heard that statement, it was on the news. Channel ten I think.

Either way, it's not my view, rather it's that of the broadcaster, whom in their defense did say it was a suggestion.

At no time have I said it was fact, but you already knew that.

As for transparency, what the government is trying to protect is tax payers money, because god knows we have seen enough of that wasted by the previous government.

So if it is true and the employees are paid way over the odds, don't you think it may be wise for them to give a little when times are tough?

The alternative of cause is to stay put and not give an inch, which is fine, but don't then cry wolf when they loose their jobs because having the best wages and conditions around are pretty much useless when you don't have a job.

Butcher,

"So if it is true and the employees are paid way over the odds, don't you think it may be wise for them to give a little when times are tough?"

False premise to your argument ... IT IS NOT TRUE

What bit don't you understand? Did you even read the article (posted above, twice?)

(I think you are doing a reasonable job to discredit yourself without my help)

ozdoc, yep, read the article, so i ask you, who's right, and who's wrong. Who knows!

What I do know is that if SPC comes clean and produces it's agreement, in full and for confidential parlimently scrutiny only, then I guess we will both know.

I would also question that if wages and conditions are not a contributing factor to their demise, what is, and how will a tax payer funded GIFT turn the company around, for good, because it's pointless throwing $25 million of borrowed funds, for which we will be paying the interest on, into a hole that is likely to open up agin a year or a few years down the track.

Sorry, but there are simply too many unanswered questions and unsubstantiated claims from both sides. That's right, both sides.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-hockey-lying-about-spc-conditions-says-liberal-mp-20140204-31zff.html
I beg for forgiveness,as a unionist I have no right to introduce the truth to such a thread .
Sorry leaving now to contemplate my sins.
If truth is unwelcome please do not read the link.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-sets-sights-on-awards/story-fn59noo3-1226818082098#mm-premium
Several posters here however will be heartened by this proof price control, that is on workers wages is on the way.
After all workers and unionists have no right to share in our nations wealth, or do they?
Starve the beggars seems a view held by some here, sarcasm? yes only defense for some comments here.

Deliberate lying by Abbott and Hockey again.
Shooting from the hip as usual.
Another foot in mouth plunder.
Abbott has lost the last bit of credibility if he ever had any.
Butch is pushing a one line fixit wages.
Abbott and Hockey have an agenda [work choices ]
What happened to the DD election, just more deliberate lies from a lier.
How long can Abbott occupy the top job, surely there are people in the noalition that can see incompetence in their leader.
3 million for a fish monger, probably a party member.

....Another foot in mouth plunder

So 579, if this turns out to be true, I guess the score is now Labor 56 to Coalition 3.

Boy they sure do have some catching up to do if you want to paint them as hopeless.

Which brings me back to the question, if wages are not the cause of their (SPC) demise, what is? And more importantly, why are you wanting us to throw more money into a bottomless pit?

I will start a thread on just that, I welcome you and others along.

The bottomless pit is your saying not mine. You have a one track solution for everything. Why not lead by example and take no more than 650 / wk.
Cheap imports are to blame and that refers to everything.

Come off it Belly, you have to face facts.

I don't know a single person who is not happy for workers and unionists have the right to share in our nation's wealth. It is what we all want for genuine Ozzies. What we want stopped is the bully boys who are prepared to destroy the wealth of all of us, to grab more than their share. It is even worse when it is obvious the grab will ultimately destroy the industry, as we can now see with mining.

I gave you the list of industries destroyed by union forced excessive wages. have you noticed that it is not the industries that are most profitable that pay highest, but those were strikes are most expensive.

There is no reason to pay a bloke who drives a container truck around a wharf, or a dump truck around a mine any more than a bloke driving a delivery truck around the city. They have extorted more, as a strike ties up huge investments with huge interest bills, making a strike more costly to the boss.

There is no reason to pay a factory worker more than a fruit picker. It is just this type of rip-off that destroys industries & jobs.

If you believe in this system, we have nothing more to talk about. Anyone who believes in such a system is no better than the mugger who holds a gun to your head, while robbing you.

I did find it amusing during the pilots strike, that most unions, & unionists disapproved, of those pilots using standard union tactics. The same people who cheered when Hawke brought in scab labour pilots, were crying foul when the same thing was tried with the wharf laborers.

So mate, if you & the noisy ones, want to blather about principle, lets see a few displayed by you & the others, otherwise you are just another mugger ripping of whoever you can damage most.

Butcher, I understand why you are having difficulty in accepting a few hard truths about Abbott & Co.

However, I will try again:

SPC Ardmona managing director Peter Kelly has said:

"Its problems were not from labour costs or productivity, but rather a high dollar which hurt exports and allowed a "flood" of cheap imports since 2009. In that period market share of private label canned fruit grew to 58 per cent today, while SPC Ardmona canned fruit share declined to 33 per cent. Our export market volumes declined by 90 per cent in the past five years."

There is more here:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/spc-rejects-government-claims-issues-the-facts-on-workers-allowances-20140204-31ynj.html

Before you get your knickers in a knot, neither a Labor nor a Coalition government controls the value of the dollar.

You don't have to be so obstinate because it really should not be that hard for you to grasp.

So once again ozdoc, why are you in favor of throwing good money after bad?

As for high wages, I will wait to see if details of the agreement are released and, if am wrong, I will accept that, but what I won't accept is heresy from an interested party, that being the CEO.

Butcher,

The Industry Minister thinks maintaining a manufacturing base here in Australia (canneries, holdens, etc.) is not throwing good money after bad.

Macfarlane tried to get the 'hard right' in Cabinet to understand this, they didn't.

The Coalition Government blithely said on their election: "Australia is open for business". Abbott & Co are closing the doors.

Ok, you will accept hearsay from Abbott - says it all really.

Abbott has been shown to be 'loose with the truth' by the Liberal MP for Murray and the managing director is bound by legislation under ASIC.

Ozdoc nice tray again, at least you're persistent.

What I said were words to the tune of "it has been suggested". I will asume you missed that bit.

Bring the Australian Dollar down to about $0.60 in the US Dollar and a lot of industries will again flourish in Australia. That means wage earners parody with overseas wages will be competitive with countries we are now importing from.

Josephus, it is my understanding that our dollar is a mere small fish in a big sea and, it tosses and turns in accordance wit what happens in the US.

I must admit I don't know much about currency, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I wou,d also suspect that the banks would become nervous.

rehctub,
A lower value of the Australian dollar would mean less imports and purchases from overseas. Instead of buying 100 items for a dollar, we would only purchase 60 items at a dollar. However this is not likely to happen in the short term as we are still first world standard of living. Until our standard of living is equal to countries like China we will continue to purchase cheap imports. Consumers choice will continue to purchase products because of price in preference to the dearer Australian produced.

So in othe words Josephus it's never going to happen.