Should the UK and Canada trust the USA today

[Noaidi]

So are us Brits invading the US or what? Isn't that what the thread was about....?


I'm confused.

 

[Kathryn]

So you are talking about one isolated incident, which you hold a personal grudge against, and which you have no direct experience of given that your husband quit as soon as a Canadian firm bought the business?

Not exactly the systemic transformation you originally described, is it?

No, Alceste, I gave several examples of Canadian companies with extensive interests and ownerships in the US.

And yes - my family also experienced this first hand. That doesn't negate or lessen the validity of anything I said.

I gave several links - you can research it yourself if you like. I don't personally feel like digging up more information on how many US interests they are buying up, but it's pretty easy to Google.

As for the personal grudge - we don't hold a grudge at all. We look back at the whole experience in a bemused manner. My husband didn't care for the rather odd changes that the new Canadian owners began to put into place, and so he left his upper management position with the company (on excellent terms by the way), and immediately tripled his income - which, come to think of it, is amazing and probably a once in a lifetime opportunity.

So I'd say that Trican was probably indirectly the best thing that ever happened to his career. THANKS, CANADIANS! You lost a good one though - glad to see he's appreciated and compensated elsewhere!

 

[Kathryn]

So are us Brits invading the US or what? Isn't that what the thread was about....?


I'm confused.

LOL, no. No Allies are invading other allies -unless you count the companies crossing borders and buying out other companies.

I wouldn't call it an invasion - I'd call it free enterprise under trade agreements. But the implication in the OP was that the UK and Canada were actually under some sort of secret threat from the US.

My own personal experience has been with Canadians buying up US companies, interests, and properties - and I gave several examples. But I didn't give the examples to say or imply that this was WRONG - any more than it's wrong for US companies to move into Canada.

Companies in both countries do it and will keep doing it, whether the natives like it or not.

Carry on.

 

[kai]

Probably why their leaders get on so well with yours.

No its because the US is essentially although change is inevitable a product of the British by the British. the war of independence was by a colony not a foreign entity. their expats

 

[Noaidi]

LOL, no. No Allies are invading other allies.

I know. Perhaps I should have put a smiley after my post!

 

[ScottySatan]

The UK liked Germany in the 20's and 30's as well.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

LOL, no. No Allies are invading other allies -unless you count the companies crossing borders and buying out other companies.

I wouldn't call it an invasion - I'd call it free enterprise under trade agreements. But the implication in the OP was that the UK and Canada were actually under some sort of secret threat from the US.

My own personal experience has been with Canadians buying up US companies, interests, and properties - and I gave several examples. But I didn't give the examples to say or imply that this was WRONG - any more than it's wrong for US companies to move into Canada.

Companies in both countries do it and will keep doing it, whether the natives like it or not.

Carry on.

It is almost impossible to know who owns or controls what company.
Proxy ownership of shares often disguises the real owners.
All countries own companies elsewhere that are seemingly native. Even household names.

International corporations can be hard to place, as ownership can differ to registration.
The actual nationality of the senior management or location of the head office can be no certain indicator of national ownership.

many "owners" are simply wealthy trading nations, such as the oil rich Arab states. who set up shells to handle their affairs.

I would suggest that there is no certainty as to the final ownership of "Canadian companies operating in Texas, any more than there is anywhere else.

 

[Kathryn]

It is almost impossible to know who owns or controls what company.
Proxy ownership of shares often disguises the real owners.
All countries own companies elsewhere that are seemingly native. Even household names.

International corporations can be hard to place, as ownership can differ to registration.
The actual nationality of the senior management or location of the head office can be no certain indicator of national ownership.

many "owners" are simply wealthy trading nations, such as the oil rich Arab states. who set up shells to handle their affairs.

I would suggest that there is no certainty as to the final ownership of "Canadian companies operating in Texas, any more than there is anywhere else.

What IS a certainty that there are companies headquartered and led by Canadians buying up oilfield services companies and property rights and interests in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania (currently some of the most active oil reserve areas in the US).

And maybe the same thing is going on in Canada with companies headquartered and led by US citizens.

But it IS happening - and it's a two way street. Canada is not a "victim" of the US in this area of trade.

 

[sadiq]

Okay did you just use Southpark as evidence for American animosity towards Canada?
Talk about quality posting.

I remember in "The Simpsons" Homer called the french Cheese eating surrender monkeys, Should France expect an invasion?

 

[Father Heathen]

and don't believe in climate change.

Oh, I'm sure the industry does, but environmental worries stifle profits, so they're ignored. They do however try to convince vacant-eyed, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing voters that it's a myth, so that they vote in the politicians that are in the industry's pockets.

 

[Alceste]

Okay did you just use Southpark as evidence for American animosity towards Canada?
Talk about quality posting.

I remember in "The Simpsons" Homer called the french Cheese eating surrender monkeys, Should France expect an invasion?

Talk about not having a sense of humour.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, Alceste, I gave several examples of Canadian companies with extensive interests and ownerships in the US.

Ownership interest is one thing, but you were making implications about the companies firing all their Americans and replacing them with Canadians.

This would run counter to what I know of immigration rules (generally, the US government doesn't let in foreign workers if the need can be met with domestic workers) and business practices (usually, companies are concerned with making money, so they wouldn't hamper themselves by throwing away all the professional knowledge stored in the brains of their workforce just to go through an expensive re-hiring process), so it sounds very unlikely the way you've been telling it.

I think that if a company really did do that, there would probably be other issues at play as well.

 

[Alceste]

Ownership interest is one thing, but you were making implications about the companies firing all their Americans and replacing them with Canadians.

This would run counter to what I know of immigration rules (generally, the US government doesn't let in foreign workers if the need can be met with domestic workers) and business practices (usually, companies are concerned with making money, so they wouldn't hamper themselves by throwing away all the professional knowledge stored in the brains of their workforce just to go through an expensive re-hiring process), so it sounds very unlikely the way you've been telling it.

I think that if a company really did do that, there would probably be other issues at play as well.

^ This. Also, corporations on both sides of the border consider the whole of North America to be one single market. That means some "American" firms have HQs in Calgary and some "Canadian" firms have HQs in Houston, but most are active in both countries and owned by shareholders in both countries. (Well, internationally, really. When it comes to the oil industry, there are no borders).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

^ This. Also, corporations on both sides of the border consider the whole of North America to be one single market. That means some "American" firms have HQs in Calgary and some "Canadian" firms have HQs in Houston, but most are active in both countries and owned by shareholders in both countries. (Well, internationally, really. When it comes to the oil industry, there are no borders).

There are some Canadian companies that have really branched out around the world. A number of Canadian mining companies got their start here and now run mines in South America and other places.

And when I visited the Bahamas, I was really surprised by the number of branches of the Bank of Nova Scotia I saw.

 

[Alceste]

There are some Canadian companies that have really branched out around the world. A number of Canadian mining companies got their start here and now run mines in South America and other places.

And when I visited the Bahamas, I was really surprised by the number of branches of the Bank of Nova Scotia I saw.

My cousin is a petroleum geologist. We get post cards from him every couple of weeks. Russia, Bolivia, the UK, Germany - a different country every post card. From talking to him, I get the distinct impression that oil execs are pretty much border-blind, whatever their country of origin. I don't even know if his company is "Canadian". He is, but he doesn't seem to actually live anywhere. His company could be registered in the UK for all I know.

 

[Kathryn]

Ownership interest is one thing, but you were making implications about the companies firing all their Americans and replacing them with Canadians.

This would run counter to what I know of immigration rules (generally, the US government doesn't let in foreign workers if the need can be met with domestic workers) and business practices (usually, companies are concerned with making money, so they wouldn't hamper themselves by throwing away all the professional knowledge stored in the brains of their workforce just to go through an expensive re-hiring process), so it sounds very unlikely the way you've been telling it.

I think that if a company really did do that, there would probably be other issues at play as well.

Once again - I don't implicate. I say what I mean. You run into trouble when you start trying to twist around what I'm saying to fit your opinion of my philosophy or mind set.

I gave a specific example of a specific Canadian company which bought a Texas owned company - a company which was very successful prior to the acquisition.

It happens. I watched it happen. I also watched the same company lose much of it's customer base as well as many good US workers (who, because they were such quality workers, actually didn't have much trouble finding comparable, or in the case of my husband, MUCH BETTER, jobs).

Whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you. But keep in mind that many business decisions are illegal and/or stupid, but that doesn't keep people from making them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again - I don't implicate. I say what I mean. You run into trouble when you start trying to twist around what I'm saying to fit your opinion of my philosophy or mind set.

Here's what you said:

I do know this - Canadian oilfield services companies are buying up US oilfield services as fast as they can. They then have this annoying habit of laying off the US workers and bringing in Canadians to take their place.

You spoke not only about one firm, or not even only about a few... you made this out to be a general trend ("habitual", if you will) that Canadian oilfield firms in Texas fire their American employees and replace them with Canadians.

When asked to support this, you gave a single example where this actually happened (which I still think is missing details, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense) and a handful of cases where Canadian firms simply acquired American ones... but with no mention of any sort of layoffs or bringing in of Canadian staff.

I gave a specific example of a specific Canadian company which bought a Texas owned company - a company which was very successful prior to the acquisition.

You claimed that it was happening "habitually" and involved companies, plural. One case does not make a trend.

It happens. I watched it happen. I also watched the same company lose much of it's customer base as well as many good US workers (who, because they were such quality workers, actually didn't have much trouble finding comparable, or in the case of my husband, MUCH BETTER, jobs).

Whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you. But keep in mind that many business decisions are illegal and/or stupid, but that doesn't keep people from making them.

Frankly, I don't believe you.

I don't think you're necessarily lying, but I do suspect that either you were given bad information that you passed on in good faith, or there are more details here that you aren't privy to.

But in any case, even if it happened in one office at one firm, this doesn't mean that Canadian companies are making a "habit" of the practice, which is what you claimed in the first place.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe it either, for the specific reason that the wife of a man who gas been laid off by a company is unlikely to be able to report objectively on the circumstances of his dismissal. Changes of ownership and organisational restructuring are very stressful for employees - especially when layoffs occur - and grudges and misperceptions develop. I've yet to hear anybody who has been laid off in these circumstances report that the company did better after the restructuring. That includes impressions my partner and I have of the local government we used to work for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe it either, for the specific reason that the wife of a man who gas been laid off by a company is unlikely to be able to report objectively on the circumstances of his dismissal. Changes of ownership and organisational restructuring are very stressful for employees - especially when layoffs occur - and grudges and misperceptions develop.

I wasn't thinking so much of grudges as my recognition that the kind of information that she's describing has to be based on rumour. No company is going to be putting out a press release saying "hey - we just replaced all our local staff with foreigners", and new employees at the office probably aren't going to be showing their passports to the laid-off staff.

I see it as entirely possible that, say, the new company brought in a new branch manager who happened to be Canadian and a few steps of broken telephone through the rumour mill turned this into "the company is full of Canadians now!"

One company I was at got bought by a big American firm. They transferred in a few project managers from US offices and eventually did let some people go. But this didn't mean that they were replacing Canadians with Americans; the events were coincidental. The two American guys got brought in to help the staff learn the procedures for the parent company, and the Canadians who got laid off were let go because of a downturn in business.

I've yet to hear anybody who has been laid off in these circumstances report that the company did better after the restructuring. That includes impressions my partner and I have of the local government we used to work for.

Heh... I've been through two mergers myself, and I've heard of other firms that have gone through them. They seem to generally go badly for the people involved whether they're laid off or not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I once worked for a subsidiary of a very large company. the subsidiary was not pulling its weight. Head office put in a new managing director ( who was a multimillionaire in his own right) he said he would turn us round in six months and then leave. That is what in fact happened. We were informed every step of the way, It went exactly to plan. he made half the directors redundant ( with packages that gave them support to find new jobs for life) he made all general managers and half the line managers redundant and only reshuffled or removed a few supervisors. the whole place was reorganised under the remaining managers, all of us picked up additional responsibilities. Profits tripled in that first half year and turnover doubled. He put in place excellent redundancy terms for those that left. he then appointed a new managing director from a sister company and left himself. Even those that were redundant were impressed.

I do not think it is a matter of the nationallity of a new senior manager that matters, but how good they are at their job.