for over 100 years, the situation in Luxembourg was exactly the same as today’s: there were absolutely not enough homes! At least not in the municipalities where melting in the surrounding area occurred. Many people had left their village to move to the communities where they could hope for a good job. And there, ARBED played a major role. History professor Nadine Schmitz writes in her article “Le paternalisme d’Emile Mayrisch *” very clearly: Aline Marisch, the lady of the ‘grand patron’, the laissez-faire subsistence in cet echard: le logement, c’est là la véritable clef de toute la question social “! These are weather that one can hardly hear from a tight capitalist today!
ARBED helped build the so-called working houses, the first one since 1880.
Full work centers were created, such as on Brill in Didelange, in Esch-Belval (Cité Raemerech-Weierwuues) or in Esch / Schifflange. All the houses were just for rent in the beginning: they went to the workers who had been working for the ARBED for a long time and it was looked after by the household composition, thus by the number of children. The rent accounted for 5% of the invested capital. This was a good thing for the workers, as Paul Zahlen notes: in Didelange, for such a shelter one paid 45 francs a month, where the normal rent in the municipality cost between 150 and 180 francs. The worker worked for a day, and then he had the rent almost entirely together! At the same time, ARBED helped the workers to buy a home: the domestic pension fund stretched the money until the savings bank agreed to the loan (this took up to a year run)
The ARBED was even more social, as was their reputation, at least under the May! As early as the end of the 19th century there was a health insurance for the workers, which received 3% of the salary and the company quoted an additional 50%. ARBED set up first small clinics, the first being the Norbert Metz Foundation, in 1878 the Escher hospital was added. An annual congress was held: after one year of service, it had already been 8 days, after 25 created years there were always 30 congress days!
Bachelors were provided with cheap money dorts, there
were canteens and casinos, and there were ARBED delicatessens: Economat / La Sacha, where exclusively the employees of the smelter could buy cheaper; pregnant women received a small prime after birth, which meant that the woman could pay for a home help for 20 days. Since then, tuberculosis was widespread – especially among children – sanatoriums were built, such as on the Kriezberg, there were subsidies, for example the working children who wanted to study and even were thought to be garden-centers, Schrebergärten; that way, fresh vegetables were on the table and the man was better employed in the garden than in the bistro or in the puff.
Thus, at the beginning of its history, ARBED has done extremely much for society – where the state was still behind – and of course for itself, too, because a healthy employee is more productive than a sick person. When ARBED opened its own schools, then of course, in the view that the working children would also work for the melting, etc. If one compares it today, however, it can only be noted that a large number of things have been taken over and improved by politics, but at other points the big companies leave the papa state to the authorities and the skills.
“… CAN A GREAT BUSINESS WHEN GOOGLE, NOT MAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY WITH SUBSCRIPTION …?”
Google needs much electricity – 10 percent of national consumption than labor. Google is by no means comparable to an ARBED and still gets the electricity charged as if it belonged to the heavy industry, otherwise the interest would have been zero! Wouldn’t that be an idea, would such a company be opened in the future to invest in the national electricity network? Google needs a lot of electricity, the company should be obliged to produce part “x” of it themselves and inexpensive. At least, such a heavyweight, which is not lacking in money, should invest in green products.
Isn’t it possible to keep such a large company and not to invest its employees in the Grand Duchy of stone ?! Well-meaning, not buying anything, because that would further the march, but buy land and build new homes? I am reminded of the letter that Daughter Andrée Mayrisch wrote to his father: “It is traditional and logical for patronage to exercise political action in the context of the extension of the domain of economic and social status.” this attitude of patronage comports to lai l’obligation d’assumer lui-même la responsabilité du bien-etre de l’ouvrier, dance to les domaines or bien-etre n’est pas assumé par l’Etat …. Parce you are the leaders of the industry to create immense success vis-à-vis your salary, as well as a decoule for eux, the consumer’s responsibility for the son-in-law “. There is no better home to be with housing than at home.
Google could tap into a permanent staff of people and make powerful roots in the Grand Duchy. Do such considerations not even belong to the discussion of qualitative growth ?!