I got a comment today to an old post about the daughter of a Latrobe Brewery employee’s petition and open letter to Anheuser-Busch president Augie Busch IV hoping to persuade A-B not to move production of Rolling Rock and close the Latrobe Brewery.
Here’s the comment, from Bud:
The brewery has nothing to do with A-B. The letter and these comments are meaning less.
The original post was from May of this year, one week after the announcement that the Latrobe Brewery would be closing at the end of July and A-B would move production to their plant in Newark, New Jersey. It was an emotional time, especially for the town and the families who were losing their livelihoods when and if the brewery closed. So many people, myself included, didn’t initially focus on the details. But as it was later pointed out, it was InBev who would decide the fate of the Latrobe Brewery, not Anheuser-Busch. A-B bought the rights to the Rolling Rock brand and not the brewery itself from InBev. Of course, we don’t know if the brewery was originally part of the deal and it was negotiated away as one of the terms of the sale to A-B. We know A-B didn’t need another brewery. We know later in May A-B categorically said they were not interested in the Latrobe Brewery. It’s tricky to speculate, of course, but it seems logical that InBev would have preferred to sell both the brand and the brewery to one buyer. That would have been better for them but as we’ve seen, not for the ultimate buyer of the Rolling Rock brand.
Regardless of who carved the brewery out of the deal or even if it never was part of the deal, there was a backlash against A-B. Many people were upset that A-B was moving production of the brand to New Jersey. From a purely by-the-numbers business point-of-view, one can certainly see the logic in the decision. But, of course, business is often not just about the numbers. There are also PR considerations, especially for a company so large and so visible as Anheuser-Busch, one that claims in lofty terms its desire to be a seen as a good corporate citizen. So A-B was certainly involved, even if indirectly, in this story and they indeed played some role in the future of the town of Latrobe, the Latrobe Brewery and the employees of the brewery. To believe otherwise I find quite naive. A-B may not have had a legal obligation to the brewery or its employees, but an argument can be made that they did have a moral one. They made the decision to not buy the Latrobe Brewery — there’s no question InBev would have sold it to them — so it’s not unreasonable for A-B to shoulder some of the blame. It may be merely an externality (an economic term for costs not borne by a company, but by others as a direct or indirect result of the company’s actions) but people were harmed by their decision. It did not happen in a vacuum, as Bud, our commenter, seems to believe. InBev, did eventually find a buyer and City Brewing of LaCrosse, Wisconsin finalized the sale in late September, but the brewery did close at the end of July. As of today, I don’t believe the Latrobe Brewery employees are back to work yet.
But let’s get back to Bud. Why should we care if he doesn’t understand how A-B might have been even a little responsible for what happened in Latrobe, Pennsylvania? Why should we take offense if Bud asserts that if A-B has no legal obligations, then anything the people effected by these events have to say about it is “meaning less (sic)?” Well here’s the thing. Bud may have used his America Online account to post his comment, but he sent it from work. And apparently he’s unaware that you’re never completely anonymous in cyberspace, because thanks to a signature embedded in his post I know he’s an Anheuser-Busch employee. He made his comment from a server at One Busch Place in St. Louis, Missouri and, from the look of it, one of the corporate servers. I suspect he’s not in the marketing department or upper management — they would have known better. But I guess people caring about their community, brewing history and their livelihoods really rankled Bud and he couldn’t resist proclaiming A-B’s innocence in all of this. Coming from an A-B employee, his otherwise simple cluelessness comes across to me as arrogant and showing a distinct lack of compassion. People fighting for their community, their heritage and their ability to put food on the table to feed their families should never be called “meaningless,” least of all by the very people forcing them into that situation.
Christina Gumola, the woman who wrote the letter, later responded to my own reservations about the potential efficacy of her letter to Busch IV as follows:
Of course my efforts may seem far fetched; however if people just accepted being told “no” and didn’t fight for what they believed in then chances are they are not too happy. I’ve always fought for what I believed in and most of the time had positive results by doing so. I am also a realist and understand that nothing may occur as a result of my efforts. At least I know that I tried! I would like to thank those of you who, though may be pessimistic, but are still supportive. I really appreciate it. Finally, fight for what you believe in-you won’t have the chance for what you want if you just let it go!!
It’s hard to read that and not want to take Bud by the scruff of his arrogant little neck and shake him a little bit just to see if he’s got a heart beating in his chest. All of her efforts may be meaningless to you, Bud, but at least she tried to fight for what she believed in, however hopeless. What have you done lately that you can be proud of besides pour salt into a wound your employer helped open in the first place?