A great place to work?

Among the lies, & fallacies, disingenuous statements and statistics that appear out of thin air over at the old PLCB fudge factory, we hear how the PLCB is a great place to work! Jinkies! Cool!

But what do the numbers say? According to the 2019 annual report (on page 61) the average age of a store clerk is 44 years old. Not exactly attracting younger workers. And when they do get workers, 56% of them are part time. I don't think those are the "Family Sustaining Jobs" that are so often mentioned. Out of that 56%, over half of them quit every year for a turnover rate of 53.1%. Even if you somehow manage to get one of the 2,453 full time filled positions, there is a 49.3 % turn over rate there too. Now factor in this: 29% of store workers change location every year.

Can you say "turn and churn"? Is it burnout, or do they just get tired of the bullshit? If the PLCB isn't that good at retaining employees, just how good they are to work for?

Turn it on its head: is this mismanaged workforce of any benefit to the agency (and thus, to the commonwealth). The average sales per employee for 2017 across this kind of industry was $689,000 per each full time equivalent. The PLCB can force a "part time" employee to work 34 hours a week if they want to, so that makes figuring out the total hours the part time workforce puts in a bit difficult. I'll just go with 25 hours a week for part time workers and 15 hours for seasonal workers.

With 3,190 full time sales and admin employees putting in 37.5 hours per week times 52 weeks, that's a total of 6,320,125 hours. Add to that 25 hours times 1,773 workers times 52 weeks equals 2,304,900 hours plus 383 seasonal workers at 15 hours each, but only 13 weeks of work equals 74,490 for a grand total of  8,719,515 hours. Take that and divide it by 37.5*52 (1,950) and you get roughly 4,471 full time equivalent employees.

Now that we have the number of full-time equivalents, we can then multiply that by $689,000 for each employee and come up with $3,080,519,000 as what average sales should be. But the PLCB only did $2,126,927,971 in sales or UNDERPERFORMED the average by just about 45%. In simple terms, having the PLCB do things is costing the state about $950 Million in lost taxable sales based on average sales. Now that is the average, there could be significant differences for liquor stores. But looking at Total Wine, they are only about 10% below that average, so it pretty much confirms the PLCB is a bloated, poorly managed organization,

It gets worse. All the PLCB numbers were taken from the number of working employees as of June 2019. However, the amount that are authorized is greater.  If the PLCB were fully staffed, they would be 65% BELOW average in sales per employee. Filling over 1000 current vacancies might cause the PLCB to not be able to meet the amount of payout revenues requested by the administration.

That of course, would require the PLCB to variably screw the citizens that much harder just to keep them afloat. In that scenario, it is better for them to have less people on the sales floor. What a way to run a business!

PLCB workers, staff, administrators, board members, and your supporters in the Legislature: tell me why we need this bloated, under performing jobs program?

We are not safer, we are not better served and we are not satisfied. Privatize.

It is to laugh

I don't do much on wine, but every once in a while the PLCB does something with wine to draw my attention. Today it was a document about their wine specialists in the stores.  It started out with "Each one of our highly trained Wine Specialists at Fine Wine & Good Spirits Premium Collection stores can help you find what you need or suggest something..."

There are 111 people listed as Retail Wine Specialists in the PLCB, along with a dozen Wine Specialty Coordinators. Up until mid-February, there was also a Specialty Wine Consultant, but the position is no longer listed; that one guy retired. I guess he took the secret knowledge with him. Most of the 111 are working as wine folks in the stores. I don't know what the 12 "Coordinators" do exactly. 

But I do know that not all the Retail Wine Specialists have even the most basic industry recognized certification, just the "PLCB" training, the kind that is recognized only by the PLCB.

These are real; the PLCB training is not.

At the Coordinator level, not all of them have even mid-level industry recognized certifications.  Remember: these are the folks selecting wine for the entire state, Keep in mind that nobody in charge of the operation has any high-level training. Not even the lowest level of  "Introductory Sommelier" at the PLCB. Of course, this matches the Board and senior executives who don't even have the lowest level of experience in the non-monopoly liquor or wine industry. That isn't to say there aren't any in the PLCB; they just aren't the ones in charge who make decisions about what the entire state is allowed to buy or drink.

You would think that as the second or third largest buyer of wine on the continent would feel the need to have a Master Sommelier on staff, but on reflection, you can understand why the PLCB doesn't. They don't have to lead in any category, only follow. They don't have to satisfy ALL consumers, just the majority. They don't have to have a business model that expands the boundaries, just one that pushes unsold wine on the populace and calls it a great idea.

Having 111 people listed as "wine specialists" sounds good, but unless you have 111 people that are actually recognized as wine specialists outside the PLCB, you're just misleading the public again. Are your specialists are as good as somebody whose livelihood depends on his knowledge and return customers? These home-grown 'specialists' are the same kind of internal self-congratulation the PLCB engages in when they "self-audit" their compliance with underage drinking laws. Hey, why not tell the IRS you're going to "self-audit" your taxes this year!

The PLCB has a lot of convincing to do. Convince us that having ten wine specialists in Philadelphia, a city of 2+ million, is better than having 50 wine shops. Convince us that having higher prices for the consumer and pitiful price breaks for resellers is good for us. Convince us that being $1.6 Billion in debt is somehow good for the state. Convince us that having people with no industry experience lead is a good way to run things. That's an uphill climb. We deserve better.

One last thing: if anyone at the PLCB believes that I'm wrong about the lack these certifications, you already have the list of names published. Just put the certifications next to the names. I won't hold my breath.

Privatize.

Where the PLCB Money Goes: Then and Now - A Second Look

Let's have a look at what the PLCB has done with its money -- our money -- since the new millennium has started. I did this story almost 3 years ago so let's see what may have changed The numbers from 3 years ago will be in parenthesis. 

Fewer stores, more employees: In July 2000 there were 692 stores with 2,869 full time workers and 1,072 part-time workers In June 2016 there are 601 (604) stores, and as of May 15th, the last reported figure for FY 2015 there were 3,067 (3,080) full time workers and 1,606 (1,417) part-time workers. Stores decreased by 15.1% (it was 14.6% the first time I wrote this) and employees increased by 18.9% (13.5%). Just looking at it from 3 years ago there are 3 less stores but 176 more employees. 

Higher gross, lower margin: In 2000 the PLCB had record sales of $1,083,330,579 and record operating income of $89,868,893 or 8.30% of sales. In 2016 the PLCB had record sales of $2,430,209,796 ($2,171,946,398) and non-record operating income of $131,770,874 ($151,877,723) or 5.42% (6.99%) of sales a decrease of 53.14% (18.6%) in operating income for every dollar spent in sales compared to 2000. (Hardly surprising, given the increase in overhead represented by the previous point.) Looking at these numbers is there any doubt "flexible pricing" is going to cost you more?

Cost overruns: In 2000 the Auditor General found the PLCB incurred $408,000 in additional costs due to problems in Its implementation of a new computerized Warehouse Management System. In 2010 the Auditor General reported the PLCB incurred excess costs of $500,000 due to problems with the new inventory system (on top of being over budget). The inventory system was contracted for $25.8 million and as of June 2010 has cost $66.6 million, or 158% over budget. Of course, we are still paying the legal expenses for the wine kiosks too.  Who knows when that will end or how much it will total.

More for ads, less for education: In 2000 the PLCB contributed 0.76% of their expenses to drug and alcohol education.  In 2013, the biggest year they ever had up to that point, they donated only 0.66%, up from the 0.53% in 2012 (also a "record year"). This year it went up but only because they had to pay the $800,000 they shorted Drug and Alcohol programs last year. It is still below 2013 levels  The PLCB hasn't released how much they spend on advertising until this year where they said the spent "about $6,700,000" or over double what they spent on education.

More booze, less enforcement: In 2000, the PLCB gave 7.39% of their expenses to enforcement of the liquor code.  In 2015, the PLCB only did 5.51% (6.19%), a shortage that works out to over $9 million less for enforcement compared to 2000. So even though the number of licensed establishments increased and the population increased, there was less liquor code enforcement. State stores still aren't checked at all for compliance.

More embarrassment, less arresting? In 1992 the Auditor General reported that: "Policing bootlegging and illegal importation of liquor without payment of Pennsylvania taxes should be the primary mission of the liquor law enforcement personnel."  In 2013 there were 2 reported cases of “bootleggers” caught. It could be that the more support for privatization there is, the less border enforcement takes place...since that would highlight the huge problem of people who purchase out of state. It might have something to do with the $9 million the BLCE doesn’t get since they were no longer funded at year 2000 levels too. While I'm sure a few token bootlegging arrests were made in 2015 I haven't been able to find out how many.

The real PLCB new funding source.

Same lack of relevant experience: In 2000 no member of the Board has had any experience with running an enterprise anywhere near the size of the PLCB.  That hasn’t changed at all in any year since and they still only work 21-22 days a year. It hasn't changed with the current board, or ANY board either.

"Multiple weaknesses" in procurement: In 2000, the Auditor General reported that: “Weaknesses exist in the administration of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's warehouse management system consultant contracts.”  In the 2010 Audit the Auditor General reported that: “…multiple weaknesses in the PLCB award process, including lack of documentation. As a result we could not verify the PLCB adhered to proper procurement standards or exercised proper due diligence in awarding the contract.” (Remember that one of the PLCB “modernization” plans is to have less oversight in procurement although thankfully that part of "modernization" wasn't part of ACT 39.)

The PLCB has not changed in the sixteen years since 2000...Act 39 will only cause a larger bureaucracy with less customer service and more problems, that spends less on its very reason for existence: control. The problems are systemic, pervasive, and totally ingrained in the PLCB's processes and workforce. They won’t be fixed until the entire system is replaced with privately-run wholesale and retail operations -- as it is in the majority of other states and countries -- and they are able to fully concentrate on regulation, compliance, and enforcement, and not sales.

Privatization is Modernization – accept nothing less.

Only 10% of a PLCB managers score is product knowledge. That explains a lot.

Consider this: only 10% (approximately) of the score on the civil service test required to be promoted to management in the PLCB has to do with product knowledge. Hard to believe, but it's fact. [see below for the reference] Since the majority of folks who work in Harrisburg for the PLCB come from the ranks, that means that most have never been responsible to know what they sell.

Imagine if that was the case for your shoe salesman. “Well, it is the color you asked for, and it looks like it will fit, but since you can’t try it here at the Pennsylvania Shoe Control Office (PASCO, "Monopolizing Your Shoe Choices since 1934!"), you’ll just have to believe me. You can return it if there is something wrong, but not just because you don’t like it or if you think it doesn’t match the requirements you gave me. The state absolves us of any responsibility for that."

In that light, I figured that since the people in charge never had to know much about the product the tests they come up with would reflect that fact. To that end I made up what I think is the level of complexity shown on the PLCB Managers test. See how well you can do.

1. Rye whiskey is made from

A. Corn
B. Malted Barley
C. Rye
D. Bourbon
E. None of the above

2. Red wine comes from:

A. Republican states
B. France
C. California
D. Red grapes

3.  Bourbon can only be made

A. In Kentucky
B. In Tennessee
C. In the U.S.
D. In a distillery

4. If you bought a bottle that has 10 year old whiskey in it and kept it for 20 years how old would the whiskey be?
A. 10 yrs old
B. 20 yrs old
C. 30 yrs old
D. None of the Above
E. 2 weeks on Close-out at 55% discount

5. What temperature should the metal trailer be in order to store wine the PLCB way?

A. 80 degrees
B. 90 degrees
C. 100 degrees
D. Unknown, these temperatures are not recorded

6.  Wine should be served at:

A. Room temperature
B. Slightly chilled
C. Whatever temperature the cooler is in the store.

7. How much wine and liquor should be stacked along the front windows in the sun?
A. As much as will fit.
B. Whatever I feel like
C. Only brands that pay for it
D. None of the above

8. Liquor of a given type should be placed on the shelf and grouped by producer/manufacturer/distillery and not by price because:
A. That is how Harrisburg wants it.
B. People only buy their favorite brand.
C. It's not important.
D. Both A and C.

9. Why is Wild Turkey American Honey in the Liqueur section and Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Honey in the bourbon section? They both say liqueur on the label.
A. That is how Harrisburg wants it.
B. People only buy their favorite brand
C. It's not important.
D. Both A and C.

10. Are 11 orange flavored vodkas enough?
A. That is how Harrisburg wants it.
B. People only buy their favorite brand
C. It's not important.
D. Both A and C.


So if product knowledge is such a small part of the job...just what do the store managers do?
They don't order product: Harrisburg does.
They don't hire and fire: Harrisburg does.
They don't lay out the store: Harrisburg does.
They don't control when they are open: Harrisburg does.
They don't control product placement: Harrisburg does.
They don't control pricing: Harrisburg does.
They don't have to pay attention to industry trends - but then Harrisburg doesn't either.
They don't have to keep abreast of the competition - but then Harrisburg doesn't either.
And they don't schedule or make deliveries.

You would think not doing so much of what private store managers do would give them lots of time to be on top of product knowledge. I'm just sayin'...



* Here's the information on management testing. Oddly, the link is no longer working because the page is gone. However, I saved a copy and below is the relevant part.

TESTING

This test will be administered on a computer.  Information about computerized testing is available online at www.scsc.state.pa.us OR in paper form at any State Civil Service Commission office. 

You will have a maximum of 2 1/2 hours to complete the test which will cover the following subject areas:

	Number of Questions by Job Title
Subject Areas	Liquor Store Clerk 2, Liquor Store Manager 1	Liquor Store Manager 2 and 3, Liquor Store General Managers
Customer Service	15	15
Product Knowledge	10	10
Policy and Procedure	25	25
Recordkeeping	15	15
Basic Supervision/Management	25	25
Advanced Supervision/Management	0	15
	___	___
Total	90	105

The PLCB value to PA.

A fairly short look at another reason the PLCB is bad for consumers.

First we have to understand what "value" is. Value is not something defined by any organization but by the individual who decides to buy "X" instead of "Y." Does that $10 bottle of wine have more 'value' to you as an individual at this time then that NY Strip Steak? This time it may, next time it may not, depending on the scarcity and availability of the item or suitable substitutes. Value is not solely price-driven either, since for every purchase the consumer considers what they won't or can't buy if they do get the product under current consideration; be it that steak or a new car. You can see this individual idea of value in people who may have expensive shore homes with little furniture, driving a 10 year old car; or the opposite, with people who have an expensive car, but live in a place that needs more than just a fresh coat of paint.

Society also places value on things. Roads, Schools, Police, etc., etc. It also places value on labor. Obviously some skills are worth more to society than others, so their value is higher, and thus the compensation received is higher. One can get an idea of how society values a profession by the compensation given within that geographic region. But in Pennsylvania, alcohol retail labor prices are not bound by market forces, and are therefore not reflective of the scarcity or societal subjective valuations of such work.

The presence of extreme unionization further shows the manner in which wages and benefits have been manipulated to unsustainable levels, and how the State creates dependent constituents who will support the government entity because they alone benefit from it. What emerges is a wage rate and level of benefits that are not found in any other retail industry, supported and defended by a large workforce of unionized bureaucrats, who will fight privatization at all costs in order to protect their artificially high wages and benefits.

These artificially high wages and benefits lure workers to the PLCB. In effect, the high compensation tells potential workers, "This is where you are needed, there is a scarcity of this kind of worker and because of that we value you greatly". However, this is false because they are not brought about by market exchange and competition, but instead by government coercion, restrictions, and taxation. They mislead the worker, and draw them into the self-sustaining bureaucracy. If it were not for the PLCB with its artificially high compensation, these workers would've been drawn into other productive industries, where their wages would have indicated a true shortage/valuation of workers and would've been put to productive uses more highly valued by the consumer.

If you believe the PLCB is a worthwhile endeavor because it provides a revenue stream to the state, then these artificially high wages and benefits reduce that revenue stream, thus providing less benefit than if labor were priced at market rate . If you believe that the PLCB should not be selling retail or wholesale alcohol, then the artificially high wages and benefits cause prices to be higher than they otherwise would be along with limiting entrepreneurship, job creation, and competition . In either case the current labor structure is not optimum for the citizens except for the 0.04% of residents who work for the PLCB.

"No government enterprise can ever determine prices or costs or allocate factors or funds in a rational, welfare maximizing manner. No government enterprise can be established on a business basis even if the desire were present. Thus, any government operation injects a point of chaos into the economy, and since all markets are interconnected in the economy, every governmental activity disrupts and distorts pricing, the allocation of factors, consumption/investment ratios, etc." (Murray Rothbard - S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics, UNLV)

(I'd like to thank Joe Norton for his invaluable help with this article.)

Do it The PLCB Way: let the unqualified lead

I often say the PLCB is poorly run and mismanaged by unqualified people. The list of mistakes, foul-ups, and just plain ignorance is a long and funny read in a perverse sort of way. As the second largest U.S. retailer of wine, the PLCB didn't and still doesn't have a Certified Sommelier on staff. None of the Board has ever run any company even 10% the size of the PLCB. The Chairman's Selection buyer isn't highly certified. There are no educational requirements for management positions...the list goes on and on.

Maybe that is changing. The PLCB now lists a Jennifer Brown as "Specialty Wine Consultant" on their payroll. She's the only one, as of 15 July, but maybe more will follow. So just how qualified is this person to be a "consultant" to the great unknowing mass of cube rats who select what every Pennsylvanian is allowed to buy?  Let's look.

I got a bit excited when I found Jennifer Brown was a certified Sommelier, a member of the Society of Wine Educators, and pursuing entrance into the Master of Wine program, along with attending the Wine Business Program at Sonoma State University in California, including viticulture and enology course work at UC Davis.  But alas...this is not the same Jennifer Brown hired by the PLCB. The one we have is a marketing person who worked or is still working as the Luxury Buyer France/CA of the PLCB Luxury division. You certainly don't want a certified and qualified person doing that job do you?

In fact, she herself lists wine tasting 4th of things she knows best behind Marketing Strategy, Marketing, and Sales.

I don't know about you, but that just about explains everything that I need to know about the selection process for Luxury French and California wine by the PLCB. My advice is go to Moore Brothers and talk to some people who care more about good wine than good marketing.


Oh, and that other Jennifer Brown, the really qualified one, also works in wine marketing -- for a private firm much, much smaller than the PLCB. Lucky them. Too bad for us.

I guess I'm on the official Enemies list

Look who I found poking around one of my accounts.

Glad to know they care enough to send the top dog.

An update: 
Ms Diehl has figured out how to poke around anonymously and now that same "Who's viewed your profile" looks like this:

Privatization facts & figures

All the arguments against privatization — job losses, revenue losses, public safety endangered, less selection and higher prices, less convenience, and worse service — are addressed and refuted below, with facts and common sense. Arm yourselves with knowledge, and pass it on to your legislators.

Jobs - Everyplace in North America that has privatized some or all of their liquor distribution system has seen an increase in employment. Jobs in the industry tripled in Washington State and Alberta, Canada, the last two places that fully privatized. They doubled in Iowa, which kept wholesale sales but privatized all retail. Are the jobs exactly the same as what they replace? Probably not; are all jobs the same at every store where you shop now? Why would alcohol sales be any different?

Revenue and Border Bleed - Sales have gone up in privatized systems, every single one; how much is dependent on taxation more than anything else. Case in point is Washington State, which already had the highest liquor taxes in the country before they privatized and added new fees. Sales have still gone up in state, and the fee-driven increase in border bleed has increased sales out of state. If they hadn’t raised taxes, in-state sales would have increased even more. Washington State’s border bleed is nowhere near the border bleed rate in PA. The border bleed increase for an entire year in Washington is about a weeks worth of the border bleed PA sees.  While privatization will not eliminate border bleed in PA, it will, just from a convenience standpoint, decrease it. A privatized PA will still not be able to equal pricing of states with lower taxes, but it will make it easier to buy locally. People pay more for convenience all the time, even when less expensive alternatives exist reasonably close. Case in point is buying almost any food or dairy item in a convenience store — “a damn Sheetz,” as Senator Ferlo would snarl — instead of a grocery store. The key is to not raise taxes.

Revenue 2 – Iowa actually decreased their taxation and still reported making more than they would have if they kept their state stores.

Revenue 3 - It isn’t only direct liquor taxation that has to be taken into account. For PA, there will be business taxes that the current system doesn’t pay. There will be more income taxes from owners and workers, since there will be more of each. There will be new jobs created that do not exist under our current system, delivery to bars and restaurants being one example, and increases in current jobs to accommodate new business. Again, just one new warehouse in Washington State employed 1,100 workers, which was more than the entire state store workforce of 937. In the long term, money will be saved by not having taxpayers responsible for future retirement and medical shortfalls. The current amount the taxpayers owe for PLCB pensions is $550 million and is expected to go up to $600 million by the end of this year.

Safety – Under the current system PA has more DUIs, DUI fatalities, underage DUI, binge drinking and underage binge drinking than 4 of the 5 privately run states on our border, and is just average compared to the rest of the country. Washington State has seen an 8% reduction in DUI crashes and DUI fatalities since privatization. While some may claim that is because there was less policing, policing has no effect on the decrease in DUI fatalities. Alberta, Canada has decreased their DUI fatality rate to one of the lowest on the continent (37% lower than PA) since they privatized, even though they have over 1,300 retail liquor outlets now for a population of under 4 million. Is there a connection? No way to say without further study, but it’s plain to see that privatization didn’t make the situation worse.

Safety 2 – Limiting underage access has always been a point for those opposed to privatization. While the true rate of underage purchases in PA State Stores is not known, since they are never independently checked (or policed in undercover sting operations, as privately-owned liquor stores in other states are) it would follow that it should be about the same as other localities which have similar requirements. Washington State was at approximately 93-94% compliance before privatization and is at about 92% now. Another thing we can learn from Washington State’s experience is how to limit direct unobstructed egress to cut down on shoplifting.

Selection - Under the PLCB, urban areas essentially subsidize rural areas for alcohol selection, something that would seem to go against their stated mission of limiting access. This is the retail equivalent of PENNDOT making sure there is a Jaguar dealer in every county, because without government intervention they wouldn’t be there. Where the population can support them there will be larger stores, and in areas that can’t support those, there will be smaller stores. This is the retail model found almost everywhere. It is not the government’s job to make sure you can buy a wide selection of booze, especially when they say it’s detrimental (but they still want to sell you more of it). It is their job to make sure that a business climate exists which will allow retailers to try to sell whatever they want within the regulations and restrictions. To date I have not heard a reasonable explanation as to why the state should subsidize alcohol like they do milk.

Selection 2 - That in-store selection will increase is not in question. One only need to look across the country to stores like Bev-Mo, Total Wine, Roger Wilco, Binny’s, HighTime, B-21 and hundreds of others to see what the private sector can provide. They provide it based on consumer demand, not by what a bureaucrat or committee with unknown or non-existent credentials selects for them in a small capital city, far from major markets. What is in question is what variety will be available in rural areas. The answer is the same as it is for any other product. If the demand is there, the market will provide it, just as it does in rural grocery stores and hardware stores. If what you want is not available locally, chances are you will be able to order it, the same as now, only you probably won’t have to buy a case at a time as it is with a good portion of the current system. The entire state of big, small, specialty, urban, and rural stores will be open to you. Not that every store will ship but it will certainly be more than now, because real businesses strive for customer service since their existence depends on it and not state police enforced monopoly power.

Prices – There are no absolutes in pricing. So much would depend on the system that is selected. Do we continue with the three tier system or do we eliminate one tier and allow more direct buying? Are taxes collected at the wholesale or retail level? Will the taxes increase or remain the same? Depending on what combination is used, you can say that prices should go down or prices should go up. The one thing you can say with certainty is that in a competitive market prices are lower than they would be given the same circumstances in a non-competitive market. As the third largest retail buyer on the continent one would expect the State Stores to have some of the best pricing available in the country. However, this is not always the case and the differences are more than taxes alone can account for.

Convenience – Since closing 20% of their stores in the past 40 years and having the lowest amount of stores per capita in the country (even lower than Utah!) there is no doubt the current system is inconvenient. Quite simply, anything that doesn’t open hundreds, if not a couple thousand more locations will not provide convenience seen in other states, and is a Band-Aid at best. It is obvious the PLCB cannot begin to compete in this area because they can’t afford it based on their business model of having everything the same store everywhere. Don’t let them buffalo you: the PLCB chooses the number of stores to open, not the legislature; the number of stores is not enforced by the Almighty Liquor Code (with the exception of the number of stores allowed to be open on Sunday). So while the population has increased over the last four decades, the number of State Stores has decreased from over 750 to about 605 today. Just to reach the national average, Pennsylvania should have about four times that number. “Modernization” does not begin to answer that issue, with one proposal saying they want to put 400 sq. ft. “stores” inside other stores, which they are already allowed to do now, and have been for at least 30 years. What exactly does that do for the consumer that the same size private store (which they claim wouldn’t provide the selection) would, besides remove that business opportunity from the citizenry?

Service – Unlike other retail stores, if you don’t like the service you can’t go anywhere else. You are stuck with the same training, the same attitudes, the same level of passion. In the world of private stores, if you don’t like the service you can go somewhere else and reward them with your business. The stores with bad service will eventually fail, and if somebody else sees the opportunity another will open. In the private sector you will find stores with a sales staff of well-trained professionals along with stores whose sales staff can barely tie their shoes. You have the choice of what level you require. Same size fits all is not a tenet of retail, although it seems to be gospel for the PLCB. There are private stores who have sommeliers on staff. The whole of the PLCB, 600 retail stores and an entire state’s wholesale wine trade, doesn’t. To be fair, the PLCB does have a sommelier as a part-time consultant. One. Part time. For the entire state. The third largest retail wine buyer on the continent does not have a full-time top tier wine person. I can’t be the only one to think there is something wrong with the system that not only allows this, but doesn’t care.

Privatization does create winners and losers. The winners are the citizens who now have access to a free market; the losers are those who can’t adapt to the free market system. While no system is perfect, looking at the rest of the country it is easy to see which one is preferred by consumers and businesses whenever there is a choice.

TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS YOU WANT THAT CHOICE!