Very Well Written Article

No replies
fred
User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 09/28/2010

You may have seen this before but it is still the same today. Excellent read.

InBev leaves a bitter taste with lies and suspensions of jobs

If you drink beer, no matter in the area of the world we are, is likely to be a buyer of InBev.Stella Artois, Brahma, Beck's, Bass, Leffe, Labatt and Hoegaarden are just a few of the more than 200 brands owned by the producer giant beer, the

result of the merger that took place in 2004 between Interbrew of Belgium and AmBev of Brazil. In the wake of InBev's corporate slogan - "the local brewery around the world" - you would think that after the famous beer is centuries of traditional knowledge, respect for the work of expert master brewers and a commitment to preserving the heritage of local communities. Think again. InBev's business strategy is based on the purchase of premium brands, the reorganization of production in their original establishments Brewing and then consolidating them into industrial brewery complexes to reduce costs. Cost reduction is the driver of InBev's road map from his character's largest producer of beer in the world to more lucrative. By the way, has trampled rights, has ruined lives and broken promises.

The "business culture of InBev is not a surprise to the / workers brewers. AmBev has built its position through a merger process which left many thousands of workers without jobs Brazilian social plans. Today, the relentless pursuit of profits by InBev is affecting Eastern Europe, leaving behind a bleak record of destruction, layoffs and broken commitments with the / workers.

Dismissals Monetary Compensation and Failed Promises

When the impetus for cost reduction Boddingtons hit in 2002, the Executive Director of the UK, Stewart Gilliland, committed to the T & G, affiliated to the IUF, to keep Boddingtons in Manchester. Three years later, production was transferred to the Preston Brewery in South Wales and ended the historic factory in Manchester.

The closures are now focusing on Belgium, the birthplace of the beer InBev's predecessor Interbrew, where the company has decided to end the brewing tradition of Hoegaarden and Belle-Vue Kriek. Shortly after some 3,000 citizens and political figures gathered to / workers of InBev in a demonstration against the closure collective, InBev management announced the names of the / workers identified to be declared excess as a result restructuring, although he had promised the Belgian unions that layoffs would not take place while talks on a social plan. La producción ha de ser trasladada a la fábrica de cerveza de Jupille. The production is to be transferred to Jupille brewery. As in the case of Boddingtons, the two Belgian brands sold extremely well. The decision to sell several brands of high quality by operating a smaller number of industrial producers of beer instead of the traditional factories destroy 232 jobs in Belgium. Shareholders are happy: February 24, InBev announced a 15.3 percent increase in earnings, amounting to € 3,300 million and exceeding market expectations. Simultaneously, reported that they would be eliminated 360 jobs in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary and the Czech Republic and there could be more redundancies. While costs are cut employment costs and brewing heritage, the company recently paid a total of € 31 million to the outgoing top executives, John Brock, Stuart Gilliland and Patrice Thys. However, InBev refuses to make their long-term plans for / workers and refuses to negotiate with the unions within a social context regarding the announced European restructuring.

A while eliminating the traditional brewers who carved the fortunes of the company, InBev stays true to its pattern of broken promises and commitments.

The Case of Montenegro

Only a few years after the acquisition in 1997 by brewer Interbrew "Trebjesa" AD Niksic (Montenegro), average monthly salaries had decreased from € 321 to € 87 and 243 of the 547 workers had been suspended . For a long time / workers were organized under the Autonomous Union of Brewery "Trebjesa" AD (SDSPT). At first, the union successfully resisted the attacks on personnel management and remuneration, but twice was forced to strike. Industrial action was crucial to limit the dramatic reductions in wages and ultimately to achieve a formal written commitment by Interbrew to negotiate a collective agreement. However, Interbrew did not observe the agreement it had signed and refused to negotiate.Therefore, the union was forced to make a third strike in May 2002. Interbrew responded with a lockout and then fired more than 50 strikers in a ruthless attempt to crush the union. Those workers included SDSPT President Bozidar Perovic.

Dubrovnik Agreement

With Montenegro's labor dispute stalled and attracting negative publicity, Interbrew accepted the IUF proposal to meet in September 2002 in the Croatian city of Dubrovnik to negotiate a fair solution. Also attended by representatives of the Belgian affiliates of the IUF, CCAS-CSC and Horval FGTB, representing most effective of all union / workers in Belgium. Interbrew agreed to end the bitter four-month conflict in the brewery Trebjesa and resume negotiations on salaries, while guaranteed that the 303 brewery workers begin receiving their wages again. Interbrew signed an agreement to protect union members and strikers from discrimination and sanctions and lift the suspensions and all legal processes against fifteen leaders of the strike committee. The agreement was endorsed by the / workers of Trebjesa, who returned to work shortly after its conclusion. Interbrew guaranteed that it would respect the agreement in its entirety.

A company above the law

Interbrew did not honor this commitment. Although the other strikers were reinstated, the union president, Perovic, was denied this right. En los años 2003 y 2004, In 2003 and 2004, Interbrew was twice convicted in the courts of Montenegro, which determined that Perovic's dismissal illegal and ordered his immediate reinstatement with retroactive compensation for lost income. But trade union rights and the law of Montenegro are not taken seriously by a company that is among the largest foreign investors in the country and, therefore, believes he can pick and choose which laws will follow. As a result, found no job at Interbrew-Trebjesa for President of the union, Perovic, who had meanwhile been re-elected and confirmed in his union office and was still technically an employee of Interbrew. Despite regular new hiring at the facility, local management insisted that Perovic's previous position had been eliminated and their experience did not qualify him for any other task.

Perovic has 34 years of experience at Interbrew and two awards as "Best Employee of the Year. You compulsory license set forth in April 2005. The unofficial history of local management was that InBev headquarters would not allow his reinstatement and that there was no chance that he will return to work at the brewery. On June 6, 2005, Perovic reported to work but was sent home again. Suspended until November 2005, was again made ​​redundant - an extraordinary act by management, which had never recognized that he had never been restored! Just Interbrew ignored the rulings of the Labour Court of Montenegro.

The reality behind the "InBev human resource excellence in management"

Interbrew has not only violated internationally recognized labor standards. Also violated an agreement signed with the IUF and the two Belgian unions. The IUF demanded an explanation. InBev sent Human Resources Manager, Marc Croonen, to meet with the Secretary General of the IUF, Ron Oswald, in Brussels in late 2005. At the meeting, repeatedly invoked Croonen InBev model of "excellence in human resource management" and pledged to return with an answer about Perovic right to receive back pay for the period was illegally removed from work, and a fair compensation for the shameful treatment by the company.

Promise never Croonen. InBev informed the Belgian unions that would be paid a sum of compensation to Perovic and so things were. The use of Perovic was dismissed again in January 2006 and the only compensation that was offered amounted to € 19,185 - which refuses to accept as fair and just.This was the amount that InBev, the largest brewer in the world, whose revenues totaled

€ 11,656 million in 2005, was willing to pay to get rid of a union president.

Perovic's conflict is not over yet. He and his family are living through the international solidarity organized by the IUF and affiliated organizations. It is still the president-elect of the union in InBev "Trebjesa." The new union elections will take place in the second quarter of 2006 and the / workers are coming under pressure from the company to not reelected. If not reelected Perovic, InBev will have demonstrated that you can mock the international labor law and of Montenegro with impunity.

The report corporate citizenship InBev in 2004 states: "InBev respects the different legal frameworks in which it operates, regarding the rights of / as employees of joining organizations such as unions. We respect the freedom of association and collective bargaining agreements. " For those that make beer, have never been so bitter the taste of InBev brands.

The / workers have had enough of InBev in suspensions, violations of trade union rights, contempt for the conventions signed and closures of historic brewing.

Navigation