Should Not the Radical Left Take into Account the Attitude of Workers Towards Their Own Jobs? Part Twelve, The Case of AB (Anheuser-Busch) InBev NV Brewery Workers

Introduction

One of the few things that I agree with the academic leftist Jeff Noonan, professor of philosophy at the University of Windsor, Ontario, is that leftists must start where workers are at:

Political engagement begins from trying to understand where people are coming from.

But where people are coming from can be interpreted in at least two ways: objectively–what their real situaiton is, and subjectively, what their attitudes towards their interpreted situations are. In relation to workers, there is their objective situation of being treated as means towards ends defined by employers (see The Money Circuit of Capital).

Subjectively, though, there are undoubtedly a variety of attitudes and interpretations of their own work and life situations.

Some among the radical left do not even address the issue of what workers think of their own jobs. It is hardly idealist to inquire into such attitudes.

I have started to gather evidence about the attitudes of some workers in unionized (and non-unionized) settings where I have calculated the rate of exploitation of those workers. I have  also  started a similar inquiry process for unionized public-sector workers with the largest employers in Canada and in various Canadian cities.

Since I have started to calculate the rate of exploitation of large capitalist companies, where possible, in the world (see for example The Rate of Exploitation of Sonatrach Workers in Africa), it is appropriate to include a determination or characterization of the subjective attitude of such workers. Furthermore, since I have already calculated the rate of exploitation of AB InBEV NV workers–a multinatonal Belgium-based capitalist company (see The Rate of Exploitation of AB (Anheuser-Busch) InBev NV (Including Labatt) Workers ).

Objective Exploitation and Oppression of AB InBEV Workers

What is AB InBEV? 

According to Wikipedia,

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, commonly known as AB InBev, is a Belgian multinational drink and brewing company based in Leuven, Belgium. AB InBev has a global functional management office in New York City, and regional headquarters in São Paulo, London, St. Louis, Mexico City, Bremen, Johannesburg and others.  It has approximately 630 beer brands in 150 countries.

As noted above, I calculated the rate of exploitation of AB InBEV workers for 2019  I will copy part of the conclusion from that post (and add a clarification at the beginning): 

The rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or transfering all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.

Surplus value (s) or Adjusted Profit (loss) $16,589 million or $16.589 billion US
Variable capital (v) or Adjusted Total payroll benefits $6,218 million, or $6.218 billion US

To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Surplus value (s) or Adjusted “Profit/loss” by “Variable capital (v) or Adjusted “Total payroll benefits.”

So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=16,589/6.218=267%.

That means that for every hour worked that produces her/his wage, a worker at AB InBev works around an additional 160  minutes (2 hours 40 minutes) for free for AB InBev. It also means that, within an hour worked, a worker at AB InBev works 16 minutes to produce her/his wage or salary and 44 minutes for free for AB InBev.

In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in  2 hours 8 minutes (128 minutes) and works 5 hours 52 minutes (352 minutes) for free for AB InBev.

In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in  2 hours 24 minutes (144 minutes) and works 6 hours 36  minutes (396  minutes) for free for AB InBev.

In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in  2 hours 40 minutes (160 minutes) and works 7 hours 20 minutes (440 minutes) for free for AB InBev.

In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in  3 hours 12 minutes (192 minutes) and works 8 hours 48 minutes (528 minutes) for free for AB InBev.

In a 14-hour (840 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in  3 hours 44 minutes (224 minutes) and works 10 hours 16 minutes (616 minutes) for free for AB InBev.

Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and   Employers as Dictators, Part One).

In practice, AB InBEV workers work for more than necessary to produce the equivalent value of their wages and benefits, and their surplus labour produces AB InBEV profits (surplus of value).

You would think that, given these circumstances, AB InBEV workers would find their work situation mainly negative.  Indeed, there are leftists who have argued that workers explicitly experience alienation from their work. David Graeber (2018), in Bullshit Jobs A Theory, states (page 19):

The result was to reveal that men are far more likely to feel that their jobs are pointless (42 percent) than women do (32 percent).

Drawing upon data provided from another survey, he states:

… the survey makes abundantly clear that ( 1) more than half of working hours in American offices are spent on bullshit, and (2) the problem is getting worse.

In another survey, we read the following (Peter Fleming (2015), The Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself, page 3):

A recent survey … reveals that only about 13 per cent of the global workforce considered themselves ‘engaged’ by their jobs. The remaining 87 per cent feel deeply alienated.

Subjective Attitudes of AB InBEV Workers Towards AB InBEV and Their Working Situation

The data provided below, however, does not substantiate such views.

To obtain such data, I provided a review of my last employer–Lakeshore School Division–for the website Indeed in order to gain access to company reviews.

There were 1,621 reviews  at the time that I started this post.

Of course, the numbers above will have changed in a relatively short period of time.

AB InBEV Workers’ Attitudes Towards AB InBEV and Their Working Conditions

In similar posts, I provided a more detailed quantitative breakdown of the reviews (see for example Should Not the Radical Left Take into Account the Attitude of Workers Towards Their Own Jobs? Part One, The Case of Magna International Workers), but such detail requires much more time. Unless there is a political reason for engaging in such detailed work, I will only provide the total quantitative data. 

 The ratings are from 5 to 1, with 5 being the most positive evaluation and 1 the worst.

Distribution of the Evaluations to the Various Ratings: Quantitative Data

#5

507 

#4

438 

#3

349 

#2

166 

#1

161

 

I will consider #5 and #4 ratings to be positive evaluations of their work experiences with AB InBEV. I split the #3 into two since some ratings with a #3 rating are positive evaluations while others are negative. I will consider #2 and #1 ratings to be negative evaluations.

I justify the categorisation of #5 and #4 as positive because, in addition to being quantitatively higher than #3–a nominal middle evaluation–comments made by some workers that correspond to the quantitative evaluation seem to indicate a positive evaluation. Further on, I give a couple of arbitrary examples drawn from each numbered evaluation.

Positive attitude towards working for AB InBEV
507+438+175=1,120
1,120/1,621×100=69%

Negative attitude towards working for General AB InBEV
174+166+161=501
501/1,621×100=31%

To get a flavour for the ratings, I include immediately below a couple of comments from each rating. They are not meant to be representative since I chose them to reflect the above characterizations of the evaluations.

A Few Comments from Each Evaluative Category: Qualitative Data

#5

1. Excellent working environment, very clean, very orderly!
   Truck Driver Class A (Former Employee) – Fort Dodge, IA – 26 November 2024
   Excellent working environment, very clean, very orderly and the employees are very work oriented and focused, also when there were any questions they usually got answered.
   Pros
   Usually a small Gift around holidays to employees and there family.
   Cons
   Must have strong work ethics to self manage most tasks. I.e. it’s work lol
2. Great
   Administrative Assistant (Former Employee) – Florissant, MO – 29 August 2024
   good people decent pay wwould have stayed but i relocated i didnt have issues with anybody or anything there

#4

1. Overall was a great company to work at and I felt proud to work there.
   Sales Representative (Former Employee) – Denver, CO – 1 August 2024
   This company was fun. The culture was in the business of making friends and in my experience this company is overall very well respected. I always felt as an employee that there were many perks and great things about this company like parties, happy hours, picnics, etc.
   Pros
   One team one dream culture.
   Cons
   Work could be physical at times.
2. Great people, decent work
   Warehouse Worker (Former Employee) – Eugene, OR – 31 May 2024
   Almost everyone I worked with was friendly and helpful, the job is pretty physically demanding but if you’re in decent shape and can handle long shifts than you might enjoy it

#3

1. Incapable management
   Maintainer (Current Employee) – Arnold, MO – 24 August 2024
   If you want to work and work some more, kiss butt and self promote this is the perfect job for you. Otherwise they don’t care about you. Upper management is completely disconnected and dysfunctional
2. Hardwork/decent pay
   Loader (Former Employee) – Sylmar – 9 November 2023
   You have to work hard and fast to make a decent paycheck, the more cases you throw for building and order is how you make money it’s commission. So work

#2

1. The pay isn’t worth the headache unless you’re bored.
   Delivery Driver (Former Employee) – Shannon, MS – 6 January 2025
   What is the best part of working at the company?
   You only wour days out a work week.

   What is the most stressful part about working at the company?
   Having to deal with store owners.

   What is the work environment and culture like at the company?
   Favoritism and Unprofessional

   What is a typical day like for you at the company?
   Long hours with the minimal amount of help of any

2. Good money bad culture
   Laborer (Current Employee) – Cartersville, GA – 10 September 2024
   Easy money if you like running poorly maintained equipment, want to work every weekend, having to bandaid problems because they won’t pay to fix it right, management that won’t take responsibility for anything and will look at everything to make it your fault. People are petty and the gossip is worse than teenagers.
   Pros
   Money and overtime
   Cons
   Upper Management, lower Management, dayshift

#1

1. Management loves to promise but never delivers
   Gen tech (Former Employee) – Mira Loma, CA – 16 November 2024
   Lots of descremination good money but don’t bother on working hard if you look a certain way you will make or if your related. Why don’t work hard because if you do you will never get ahead people there like to mess lots of days and if you show up they will just keep you there and tell you you have failed on everything
   Pros
   Days off
   Cons
   Management
2. Boring no challenge
   Electrical/ Instrumentation Technician (Current Employee) – Columbus, OH – 26 May 2024
   It pays average. Leader less. Claps to made up charts. All talk no substance and accountability on management part. Inexperienced managers running the show cluelessly and getting promoted without any accountability
   Pros
   Job security
   Cons
   No satisfaction

Political Relevance

Such analysis forms only a preliminary tool for socialists interested in relating to workers working for this particular employer. It is crude quantitative and should be supplemented by a qualitative analysis of comments–a much more labour-intensive task.

Unlike Jane McAlevey’s approach, which focuses on organic leaders–leaders who form a key focus since winning their allegiance leads to other workers (or community members) being convinced to join a union or community campaign (see my review in the Links section)–the issue here is to see which workers are the most disgruntled and the least disgruntled in relation to a particular employer.

Of course, the discrepancy between the objective conditions of exploitation and oppression and the generally positive attiude towards their working conditions and their particular employer, Sonatrach, has many explanations, including the lack of their consciousness of their being exploited.

Socialists should aim to increase the number of workers who have negative attitudes towards their particular employer (and, when possible, the class of employers).

It may be thought that the more disgruntled workers would then be the focus of socialists’ efforts. That may well be, but the issue is of course more complicated than that. For example, for socialists the issue is not just being disgruntled against a particular employer but generalizing this to all employers. It would be necessary for socialists to use their judgement in determining how susceptible disgruntled workers are to such generalization. In some cases, less disgruntled workers may well be more susceptible to generalizing than more disgruntled workers. Initially, though, it does give socialists a preliminary method of approaching workers, at least in a general way. Of course, no specific workers can be identified through such an approach. That would be the responsibility of socialists engaging with specific workers or community members.