Should the Canadian Govt refuse the Nexen buyout by CNOOC?

[Machjo]

From what I recall that was the Chinese company that had workers killed on an AB project- They violated labor laws and safety as well- Workers were underpaid- company was ordered to pay the employees - they claim they cannot locate any of these employees- Also hear on the case where the workers were killed they are appealing to the SCoC.

So let the SCoC deal with it, as I'm sure they currently are.

 

[taxslave]

So let the SCoC deal with it, as I'm sure they currently are.

Which could take years. That does exactly what for workers that are forced to work for substandard wages under unsafe conditions in the meantime?

 

[Machjo]

Which could take years. That does exactly what for workers that are forced to work for substandard wages under unsafe conditions in the meantime?

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.

 

[taxslave]

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.

Not when they claim diplomatic immunity.
We are talking about current events here, not some hypothetical future actions.

 

[Machjo]

Not when they claim diplomatic immunity.
We are talking about current events here, not some hypothetical future actions.

Well, if we screwed up on that one, there is not much we can do about it now; we should learn from this mistake and introduce appropriate safeguards accordingly for future events.

 

[Goober]

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.

Till they meet all the standards, till they are only permitted thru all Chinese or affiliates to own a max percentage I would send them on their way.

Till they meet a number of standards why do we have to go chasing after them.

 

[Machjo]

Till they meet all the standards, till they are only permitted thru all Chinese or affiliates to own a max percentage I would send them on their way.

Till they meet a number of standards why do we have to go chasing after them.

I agree about the chasing part. If they don't meet the same standards as Canadian companies then yes, send them on their way. That's not quite the same as saying we don't welcome them no matter what though.

If they want to invest, they do the leg work and meet our standards. If they do, welcome home. If not, have a nice trip back.

And of course we make it clear that state-owned or not, they'll all be treated the same.

Now one thing I could see would be democratizing corporations, or at least those with, let's say, 500 workers or more. Just like in Germany or Sweden, why not allow workers to elect 50% of the board of directors, with the tie-breaking vote going to the chairman, who would necessarily be elected by the owners. This way, workers have considerable say in how the company operates.

That said though, I would not agree with applying this to foreign companies only. What aplies to one applies to all. but that could be an additional measure to ensure grassroots influence.

 

[captain morgan]

Now one thing I could see would be democratizing corporations, or at least those with, let's say, 500 workers or more. Just like in Germany or Sweden, why not allow workers to elect 50% of the board of directors, with the tie-breaking vote going to the chairman, who would necessarily be elected by the owners. This way, workers have considerable say in how the company operates.

You've mentioned this before... The Nexen employees can easily gain that power by purchasing shares in the company. At the AGM, you nominate and vote to install the Board of Directors... Gvt interference in this area is not only unnecessary, but will also act to scare-off institutional investors that may not like their money being controlled by individuals that have no risk in the deal.