Any more ex-Fonterra suppliers out there?

[gsxr]

Slightly off topic but still relevant. From my recollection Fonterra was formed in 2001 with in excess of 90 % of dairy farmers at the time becoming shareholders. That was to increase returns to the shareholders .
However Fonterra became a corporate with no regard for its shareholders . In fact its mission now appears intent to screw over the shareholders. Yes the dairy farmers that are doing the production.
To assist in that screwing over they have used funds /money/ remuneration due to those providers to build dairy factories in China to produce the exact product we are producing here and exporting to our largest market. Yes China. To further screw the shareholders they are also exporting cows in calf to China and employing kiwis to teach the Chinese to grow milk.
Fonterra as a corporation dont care where their revenue comes from . They have zero concern for the dairy industry here now. Consolidating in China and South America is their major focus

[Katman]

Slightly off topic but still relevant. From my recollection Fonterra was formed in 2001 with in excess of 90 % of dairy farmers at the time becoming shareholders. That was to increase returns to the shareholders .
However Fonterra became a corporate with no regard for its shareholders . In fact its mission now appears intent to screw over the shareholders. Yes the dairy farmers that are doing the production.

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.

[gsxr]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

Id hate to be you

[Katman]

Id hate to be you

I'd hate you to be me too.

[HenryDorsetCase]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.

?.......????? Dude, really?
Also you did read the OP! right?

[bogan]

I get the advantage of later payments, but its bean counter bullshit unless you have that actually set up with suppliers. Cos once you start failing supplier attitude tests, lead times climb, prices are given a nudge; and actual cost to business takes quite a hit.

And I don't care how big they think they are, they're barely a blip on my revenue and if they can't meet my terms and conditions they can get fucked. Without their work whatever hrs I invoice them for would be invoiced to someone else, someone who pays me when they agreed to, why would I put up with less from them?

It'll take them another couple of months to work that out, even though I've already warned them, and even then they won't source an alternative in time to avoid some savage downtime. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery..

You have to feel sorry for those other suppliers who do rely on their business though.

Stop work until overdue payments received, then charge overtime rates to catch up on their urgent shit they left to last minute. Win-win.

[mashman]

I know a few guys who say that this behaviour is becoming more prevalent among customers too. Completely satisfied with the job like, but they take an extra 60 days to pay. Shame to hear them whining like stuck pigs, but if I were in the same position I'd likely be just as pissed.

[Ocean1]

I get the advantage of later payments, but its bean counter bullshit unless you have that actually set up with suppliers. Cos once you start failing supplier attitude tests, lead times climb, prices are given a nudge; and actual cost to business takes quite a hit.



You have to feel sorry for those other suppliers who do rely on their business though.

Stop work until overdue payments received, then charge overtime rates to catch up on their urgent shit they left to last minute. Win-win.

Aye, the value of goodwill obviously isn't a factor in their calculations.

For me it's not even that complicated. I'm sitting on a piece of equipment here, ready to re-install. If they can arbitrarily change the terms of our contract then so can I, the price just went up 10% and they get the equipment when their account is up to date.

But yes, those that live or die on their Fonterra contract will be hurting for a month or two.

[Ocean1]

I know a few guys who say that this behaviour is becoming more prevalent among customers too. Completely satisfied with the job like, but they take an extra 60 days to pay. Shame to hear them whining like stuck pigs, but if I were in the same position I'd likely be just as pissed.

Like I said it's become the default payment schedule overseas, but while it saves the big guys a bunch it means some small suppliers go under.

And new ones never arrive to compete, because instead of just having to buy some plant and a ute or van and find enough reserves to cater for a month or two of fiscal drag they now have to stump up with a whole quarter worth of overhead costs. For a small engineering business that can mean an increase from maybe a few tens of thousand to more than their house is worth.

There's a business law that says that any market eventually evolves into just three suppliers, and for most countries that's true. But NZ is a land of small businesses, and I've seen so many small businesses bought out by big corporations only to have their prices double to get a fairly good idea of the difference in respective performance between the two models. So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?

[sidecar bob]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.

I got the impression that he has more work than he can handle & will just move over to the clients that pay as they should.
Much as you & I don't share the same opinions, I still find you to be a most affable chap in person & would be crushed if I heard that bad tidings had befallen you.
My business remains strategically understaffed so I am constantly in a position to just scrape the cream off. Every one is a winner, high profit good paying job with low expectation of future failure, or warranty comeback/ do over again.
In a nutshell, I refuse to employ fuckwits so I can do work for fuckwits.

[mashman]

Like I said it's become the default payment schedule overseas, but while it saves the big guys a bunch it means some small suppliers go under.

And new ones never arrive to compete, because instead of just having to buy some plant and a ute or van and find enough reserves to cater for a month or two of fiscal drag they now have to stump up with a whole quarter worth of overhead costs. For a small engineering business that can mean an increase from maybe a few tens of thousand to more than their house is worth.

There's a business law that says that any market eventually evolves into just three suppliers, and for most countries that's true. But NZ is a land of small businesses, and I've seen so many small businesses bought out by big corporations only to have their prices double to get a fairly good idea of the difference in respective performance between the two models. So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?

I get how it works and I get how "general" business process will eventually be swayed by that sort of practice. How do you legislate for that without breaking the law in regards to what's classed as "fair" competition?

[Tazz]

To be fair 90 days is fairly common overseas, rather than the ubiquitous "20th of month following invoice" normal here, and when I work off-shore I accept that, and build it into the price. 8% contingency, usually.

Why not just do the same in this case?

[Smifffy]

Why not just do the same in this case?

Possibly will, now the 'rules' have changed (been broken)

As already said, this move by the big F might solve a short term cash issue, but it could very well drive their costs up overall.

[Ocean1]

I get how it works and I get how "general" business process will eventually be swayed by that sort of practice. How do you legislate for that without breaking the law in regards to what's classed as "fair" competition?

Why legislate for it at all? If the supplier and the consumer can't agree a price + terms and conditions then the deal doesn't get done. That's the core principle of a free market, nobody is being forced to buy or sell.

If Fonterra find themselves unable to source services for the price and conditions they're offering then they'll either have to pay more, pay it earlier or do without. A situation I'm contributing to in a very small way not because their policies really hurt me but because I don't like seeing the big guys bullying the little guys.

[Ocean1]

Possibly will, now the 'rules' have changed (been broken)

As already said, this move by the big F might solve a short term cash issue, but it could very well drive their costs up overall.

It's not a cash shortage issue, it's just plain increasing their margin a the cost of their suppliers. They're behaving just like the multinationals we all love to hate.

And the multinationals aren't the only ones behaving like arseholes, telecom have been decidedly odius with their staff and contractors for yonks, shuffling contract boundaries to make it look like they have to import linesmen from Indonesia, purely coincidental that they work for half the hrly rate locals work for.