(7k - EN) A serious conflict between the Delhaize and the staff

The conflict between the staff and the management of Delhaize continues. This article shows why the staff, together with the unions, may be right. After all, the profit margins of the stores are less today than they used to be.

The retail landscape is changing dramatically. People now regularly buy smaller quantities instead of once a week. For example, it appears that shops managed by Delhaize have limited opening hours, such as not being open on Sundays, when many people go shopping these days. The reason? The staff must be paid extra on Sundays. Evening work must also be paid extra.

People now also buy via websites while products are delivered to their homes. This is even promoted by Delhaize, as a result of which people go less to stores, and therefore stores have less income.

Since the profit margins are less, it will also be more difficult for the self-employed to make the business profitable, especially since Delhaize is not cheap. An example is Snickers which can be up to 55% more expensive in Delhaize than in local stores.

Finally, there are too many supermarkets in certain places, and more will continue to be added, so that we know that not only Delhaize but also other supermarket chains will run into problems. So here there is a responsibility for politicians to enact rules to create a healthy environment for shops of all types. This means that there may be a limited number of supermarkets of the same group per inhabitant, but also for the entire sector. For example, 30% of the total supply of supermarkets may belong to the same group, with a total of, for example, 30 or 50% supermarkets of all shops. By the way, when there are too many stores of a certain group, there can be delivery problems because trucks can no longer fully supply all stores.

"Independent shops" should also mean that operators should not only buy products from Delhaize, but can also do so elsewhere, so that they can buy products cheaper and then sell them at competitive prices, instead of at higher prices than competitors (see my above example regarding Snickers).

If Delhaize now wishes to leave the stores to the independents, this is because they will gain. Indeed, those who wish will pay to take over the store and run it as self-employed. So, money for Delhaize. However, these independents will have to continue to buy the products from Delhaize, so profit for Delhaize. If there are now too many Delhaize stores in the same area, these will be competitors of each other while the supply may not be optimal, although Delhaize can then blame the cities where delivery times are often limited nowadays. There is also competition with other supermarkets and shops. In the end, certain Delhaize stores will indeed be unviable and have to close, but the costs will not really be for Delhaize but rather for the independent operator who could be blamed for bad management.

There is nothing against independent stores. However, large supermarket chains have tried in recent years to compete with small independent shops. And now that these have often disappeared, Delhaize, and possibly other chains in the future, wish to make their own stores independent, but the decision where the independent operators buy their products does not lie with those operators because they have to purchase from the supermarket chain, which increases the risk for the independent operator while the advantages are for Delhaize. Is that correct?

However, apparently Delhaize now wishes to guarantee that no independent Delhaize will be able to go bankrupt during the first five years, until 2028. However, is this not support for loss-making stores, and is that possible? This would also mean unfair competition for other self-employed people. Not sure how legal that will be. And so the conflict continues.