McGill law professors strike
Professors of law at McGill are now on strike.
The SAQ is striking on Wednesday with intentions to continue through Thursday. Management may be keeping some stores open, but no decent person will be buying booze today. This is what workers want.
Incidentally, the SAQ is going to stop stocking more than a hundred locally produced hooches.
Crossed my mind just now: is the CAQ undermining the SAQ system just as they’ve been determinedly undermining socialized medicine?
Blork 11:22 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
I’m not sure what the CAQ connection would be.
As the article says, the market is saturated with local distilled products. It quotes the SAQ marketing boss asking, quite rightly, if we need ten brands of locally made lemon gin. She also invokes the not-used-enough adage that too much choice is less choice (the paradox of choice). We see this in the yogurt aisle of any grocery store, where there are 500 different yogurts to choose from, making it hard to actually decide or to find the one you want. (I buy 2% plain yogurt, and my time in front of the yogurt fridge is always the most hated part of my trip to the grocery store.)
To me, this points out one of the down sides to having a government monopoly. I have no problem with them culling the choice to make things easier for consumers except that this can also remove niche and oddball products from the market and potentially drive those makers out of business. Maybe we don’t need 10 local lemon gins at the SAQ, but the ones that sell the least (and are most likely to be culled) might have their fans, and they might actually be exceptionally good or interesting products that just haven’t found their people yet.
In that respect, culling wouldn’t be such a problem if those small-batch and small-sales brands had a chance to stay afloat by finding other stores to sell their products. Beer makers can do this; your thistle and rosemary IPA that only 30 people like can be sold in deps and grocery stores without the long hand of the government monopoly declaring you unworthy and killing your business.
Kate 12:50 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
The CAQ has always been business first, and they make little secret of the fact that they’re only interested in you if you have a car, and can afford a house and private health coverage. I’m sure they’d love to denationalize Hydro and the SAQ and radically downsize public transit too.
Blork 15:27 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
Yeah, I get that. I’m just not sure how that’s connected to culling products, but maybe you meant the other thing about the strike. (But even then, I don’t know that the CAQ has much sway with how the SAQ runs things…)
carswell 17:48 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
My understanding — Plato’s cave-ish at best — is that the main things the government cares about with the SAQ are maintaining the annual dividend (all the SAQ’s profits) and avoiding situations that make the government look bad (e.g. the executive party scandal of a couple of decades ago).
That being the case, booting underperforming products from the catalogue in favour of better-selling ones is exactly the kind of thing the gov wants the SAQ to focus on as beverage alcohol sales continue to fall. To all appearances, the current situation with the monopoly carrying every local distillery product submitted to it — a boon to the young industry — is no longer tenable due to the booming number of distilleries and ever-expanding product lines. Will this lead to a shakeout among Quebec distillers? Quite possibly but arguably one that needs to happen. As the article notes, even industry insiders think so.
AFAIK, the only crown corporation that Quebec takes a more hands-on approach with is the SQDC, where just about every decision, policy and publication is subject to health ministry input and approval. Even more than the Liberals, who created the SQDC, the CAQistes disapprove of legalized cannabis, view it as yet another evil imposition by Ottawa, and treat its sale accordingly. Will be interesting to see what changes if/when the PQ and/or QS take over.
carswell 18:03 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
And before someone starts nitpicking that last paragraph, yes, the government does appear to have close connections to Hydro-Québec and take action to ensure the energy corporation’s policies and leadership are aligned with the government’s long-term plans. See the recent axing of Sophie Brochu and appointment of Legault fave Michael Sabia, for example.
But, as far as I know, the government’s day-to-day interference with the running of the company, its keeping the company on a very tight leash (controlling the number and location of stores, the kinds of products that can be sold and the kinds of things employees can talk about) is reserved for the SQDC.
Ian 21:42 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
From a strictly business perspective streamlining makes sense because it reduces held inventory. Since SAQ profits go directly to the government it’s not conspiratorial to think the government might encourage driving profit. The SAQ mission was always to reduce costs thr9ugh collective buying so the citizenry could get better quality wine for lower prices – driving the artisanal gin flight industry is a second tier concern at best.
Blork 22:10 on 2024-04-24 Permalink
Ian, it could be argued that “driving the artisanal gin flight industry is a second tier concern at best” is valid in something resembling an open market, but if the SAQ is a monopoly then this amounts to actively squashing it. Maybe if there were no monopoly then it would be a question of letting the market decide. As in, hands-off. If some small-batchers want to create 100 cases a year then they can if they can find people to buy it. But when you control access to the market then it’s a different thing.
I can understand that level of government oversight (and maybe monopoly) on essential things like energy (Hydro Quebec) but I’ve never understood why it’s needed for alcohol. I understand the need for some level of oversight and regulation, but why not let independent retailers sell booze, even if it needs SAQ stamp of approval? (Especially since this “cull” is entirely for retail reasons.) The whole thing just seems like a hangover from the 1930s.
Ian 08:01 on 2024-04-25 Permalink
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I approve of it – but from a modern business management perspective this is the exact sort of thing that they do to drive profits up. It’s just another facet of the general enshittification of all things in the name of increasing capital to the detriment of actual goods and services.
Kevin 08:14 on 2024-04-25 Permalink
I can understand cutting unperforming products if the only reason those products exist is because people knew they had a guaranteed marketplace at the SAQ. There’s a lot of bad gin and beer out there with no differentiating factors aside from a label.
But it would make more sense from a long-term point of view to eliminate those incentives first in order to dissuade new copycats from entering the market, and therefore encourage people interested in creating a more innovative item.