It is always defensible to protect workers and improve their living conditions. But what has been happening in recent years goes beyond all limits. And, worse than that, it creates terrible pressure upon thousands of small businesses that are Macau’s corporate fabric and are not in a position to offer the same benefits to their employees.
The result is just one: an escape from the workers to the gaming operators. Or to the government sector, which has always been seen to offer the most stable employment: many benefits – compared to what Macau law requires – few responsibilities (almost no-one makes a decision), and rare stress, which explains the huge amount of time until an action is triggered, however basic it may be.
Today’s manifestation of the Melco workers is one more of these farces. The fact that it is led by someone who does not work at Melco and tries to gain a name for a possible political race through these manoeuvres only shows how trivial this matter has become.
Has Melco chosen not to give another month (14th) of salary this year? Probably it has its own reasons. And the other operators, if they had good sense, would have done the same. It is one thing to distribute some of the profits to the workers when the company decides it is the time but quite another to be forced into it as a result of a blackmail process, when many other companies in other areas do not face the same problem and nobody dare say anything against it.
Bank of China, for example, was the second company posting the most profits in 2017, only behind Sands China, according to media reports, and there has been no distribution of wages or stocks among workers there. Much less street demonstrations.
Unfortunately, Melco will probably give in – because the existing association of gaming operators is a joke and because the government pretends it has nothing to do with it. But should not give in.
And the rest should take into account that it is one thing to contribute to the wellbeing of workers and another – quite different – to contribute to a greater destabilisation of the labour market.
Because they are private companies they can decide whatever they want to do with their money, but if they continue to choose this path they should not complain about the repercussions.
