...
written by yeahrite , October 09, 2008 (02:54:29 PM)

The Chevron is closing in Mackenzie also. Probably for the same reason-not making enough money.
The public must realize many of these businesses closing are certainly not doing so from choice. A business must make money. Would a person go to work and not receive a pay cheque. Did I hear, "NO." Well, the company has to receive a return on the investment, or go broke. It just does not seem reasonable that so many expect companies to operate just to satisfy the public's wishes. They are not performing the job of acting Santa Claus. They provide a commodity which must be paid for.
Sticking behind a community until a company goes "broke" would be sheer stupidity.
Think!!!!

...
written by Northstar , October 09, 2008 (03:21:59 PM)

Consider this yeahrite. Chevron In Fort St. James IS a profitable business, and quite able to make it's payroll obligations and even make a small return. This is not about removing a dying business, Chevron is turning all their stores into multi-franchise stores, you know, Chevron, White spot, big car wash under one roof. Spare us the lecture on the basics of economics Yeahrite, This is about corporate greed and nothing else!

...
written by Mike S , October 09, 2008 (04:53:53 PM)

I thought, but may be mistaken, that Chevron stations were franchises that were individually owned. Regardless, they are not charities, but businesses. Yeahrite is correct. If the Fort St. James station is a franchise, why don't you, Northstar, put your money where your mouth is and buy and operate it. You seem to know it's financial numbers and find them 'acceptable' to keep operating.

The fact stated in the article, that a major corporation fails to respond to some obscure 'business man', does not in any remote way mean they agree or disagree with him. One might also wonder how 'business owner Neil Courage' knows the exact profitability of another business. Maybe he should buy and run it if Northstar doesn't.

...
written by Northstar , October 09, 2008 (05:46:26 PM)

I guess it doesn't hurt to live a block from where the aticle originated. Living in a small town you learn alot from your neighbor. Your right, this Chevron is individualy owned, and Chevron has given the business 2 weeks- the reason: "We are adopting a new business strategy that does not work in your town". Don't assume the we formed an opinion out of thin air, as you have. This is a viable business, and I have spoken with Cheveron P.R. and I know Mr. Courage has also. We have the full support of town and council on this matter as we have done our homework- perhaps some of you should. Businesses fail all the time, and I understand that, but our towns are dying and it is only natuaral to fight for the ones that are staying afloat.

...
written by Mike S , October 09, 2008 (06:07:35 PM)

I understand clearly you don't want to see any business fail or shut down. But if someone else, or even a corporation, has made a decision to do that, who are you to suggest they do otherwise? Again, you want someone ELSE to run it. Do you think the franchisee, or Chevron is inept business-wise and is making a poor decision? That would be a little presumptuous if so. If it is a viable business and fits their business plan then why would they pull out? There has to be a massive amount of money tied up in a service station. I would give them the courtesy, and benefit of the doubt, of knowing their business and finance in general. If you had a business would you want others telling you what you could do? Again, if it is viable, offer to buy the place since they are leaving. Operate it independently.

...
written by Northstar , October 09, 2008 (06:27:15 PM)

I guess that is the reality isn't it Mike S. I am nobody important, and have nothing to say in Chevron's Business desicions. In Spences Bridge the Cheveron was shut down as well, problem is, the town wanted to purchase the station but Chevron won't sell. I am afraid that Chevron will hold on to the property and wait( Mt Milligan is 2 years out atleast). We cannot afford to have another 'black hole' in town. This is not just about finding another franchise owner, if it were, I may just "put my money where my mouth is". Oh ya, I am also a business owner and I take public opinion VERY seriously. Perhaps thats why I have a profitable business in an unprofitable climate.

...
written by Mike S , October 09, 2008 (07:02:14 PM)

Getting touchy about being a 'nobody' is not very logical. It's also great about your business. As a business owner, you should understand and appreciate that YOUR business is YOURS and subject to YOUR decisions, whatever you base them on. What exactly do you want? Someone or something (government maybe), to 'force' and independent business (Chevron in this case), to stay open. Get real. I'm sure you would not tolerate intervention like that. Can't have it both ways.

...
written by Northstar , October 09, 2008 (08:56:16 PM)

I don't want to 'force' anyone to do anything. What will the government do? This is MY opinion, and Mine alone. I am simply asking people to show support for a business that we have grown up with. With public support we are able to show other prospective investors that there IS a need for such a business in town. Mike S, your opinion is valid and you are right, they can do what they like. Can you imagine a land where large corporations rule, and the public says nothing? I can because it's already happening. And who said anything about getting touchy? Can't we debate? I promise to "get real".

...
written by Mike S , October 10, 2008 (07:13:23 AM)

I try not to get into the emotional 'big bad corporation' rhetoric. They are entities out to make as much money as possible. They need to be subject to every rule, law, and bylaw of every level of government, and I agree they definitely should be. If they obey the laws and you still don't like it, then you need to lobby for different laws.

I don't know what you mean by public support. As I say, corporations most often make decisions on the 'bottom line'. The only support they want to stay, is the number of dollars they make. There can be rallies... or articles written.. or many other forms of 'public support', but the they don't show 'need' for a business. They show 'want'. The balance sheets and income statements determine 'need' and again I say, the business owners themselves determine that. There are numbers that determine whether or not you, yourself stay in business. If you were to decide to close shop, I doubt 'public support' would, or should change your mind.

I'm asking in all seriousness, what exactly do you think should happen here?

...
written by yeahrite , October 11, 2008 (02:02:52 PM)

I have no intention of giving a lecture to anyone-nor did I do so initially.
I am in business, and if I do not, and cannot foresee a reasonable return on my investments, I shall get out before bankruptcy is the only option.
The economy is tanking, and people are encouraged to pay down mortgages, get rid of their credit cards with interest up to 29% and tighten their belts. Corporations are also feeling the pinch, and should not be encouraged to stay in operation for the sake of the public's benefit only. The privilege of being able to buy a loaf of bread after 9 P.M. is not reason enough for the store to pay an employee to serve a few customers after 9 P M. If Corporations do not watch the bottom line on their balance sheets-eventually, in a sliding economy, they will not be employing anyone or providing a service in any area.
In this instance they may be "getting out" to their advantage, rather than attempting to struggle through another winter, and be forced out in the spring. Upgrading and maintenance on their sites must come at a considerable expense. If the sites are aged, then they must reach a stage whereby it is not reasonable to maintain them.
Write your letters, have your rallies, but you are not gambling with your money if they stay open to serve the public with a losing proposition. They took the risk initially, and if they choose now to leave, so be it--it is their investment and money- end of story!!

responsibility
written by lost it all , October 12, 2008 (07:36:52 AM)

The only thing missing here is corporate responsibility. In Canada we have very few laws governing corporate social responsibility. We have a few in that we do not hire children to sew clothes in a dark lit warehouse 14 hours a day. We have some labour laws to protect workers, so its not just the bottom line in which companies can work to achieve their bottom line in Canada. In the case of lumber companies harvesting the public timber a deal was made that if you harvest it the corporations paid a fee to the government in the form of stumpage. Originally there was another stipulation and that was the lumber companies had to set up shop in the areas in which the timber was. Unfortunatly our present provincial government has eliminated that part of the deal and corporations are free to send our raw logs to anywhere the corp can improve its bottom line. As for the oil companies operating a service station I'm not sure the answer. But, corporate social responsibility must be considered especially if the bottom line of the corporation is achieved thru a Canadian public resourse.