The strike that wasn’t – Comment
So much for a united Europe. The world’s number one brewer AB-InBev intends to kick out 10 percent of its workforce and the public response is: “Yeah, so what?”
Take Belgium: Despite AB-InBev having received quite a bit of public spanking, Belgian consumers heaved a sigh of relief when the blockade ended on 22 January 2010 and they knew that supplies of their favourite brands would not run dry.
That there had been a two-week strike, ah well. Belgium isn’t quite as bad as the UK in the 1970s, but if you follow the local media closely there is always some sort of labour dispute taking place accompanied by strike action.
Moreover, what’s the loss of perhaps 300 jobs? In the Belgian town of Antwerp the closure of the Opel car manufacturing plant will lead to the loss of 2500 jobs. Why? Because its parent, General Motors, is in a state. While Britain and Germany could avoid the closure of their GM plants by throwing good public money after bad, the Belgian workers had to bite the bullet.
This is what has been on the Belgian public’s mind these past few weeks: being at the receiving end of a real multinational’s power and other state governments’ influence.
It would not help to point out to the Belgians that AB-InBev is a multinational company too. And that, unlike GM, it is not in dire straits because in the first nine months of the current financial year it made a profit of USD 3.55 billion. But Belgians would reply that AB-InBev is Belgian-owned. Which kind of makes it alright.
In Germany, where AB-InBev intends to set free an equal number of employees, the response has been even more puzzling. Were there any strikes in Bremen, Hannover, Munich? Blockades? Protests of any kind? No. Trade unionists will have looked on in utter despair that, even as InBev Germany is being bled dry, no one would call for counter-action.
What can this mean? Considering that Beck’s, Gilde, Diebels and Spaten have been under InBev’s heel for years, with one cost-cutting initiative following another, morale must be running so low that Germans will rather walk away from their jobs at InBev Germany than fight for them.
Which brings us to Luxembourg, where AB-InBev announced the closure of a brewery, Diekirch with the eventual disappearance of some 60 jobs. Although Luxembourg will be least affected by AB-InBev’s decision – at least in sheer numbers – several ministers, including the Prime Minister, thought it absolutely necessary to get involved in saving Diekirch. Even if they fail and consumers stick to their announced boycott of the Diekirch brand, AB-InBev’s executives need not tremble in their boots. They lose perhaps several tens of thousands of hectolitres in Luxembourg but at the same time gain even more in Brazil.
Hence, no sweat at all and back to business as usual.
