Mercedes-Benz workers’ representative Ergun Lümali has warned that threats of factory closures and demands for employee concessions risk damaging trust between management and the workforce, as the German carmaker seeks to reduce labour costs by up to €800 million.
In an interview with Wirtschaftswoche, Lümali, chairman of the company’s works council, said the automotive industry faced serious challenges from changes in China, intensifying international competition and the transformation of the sector. However, he rejected the idea that employees should bear primary responsibility for the company’s difficulties.
Mercedes-Benz chief executive Ola Källenius is seeking savings that could include up to five hours of unpaid overtime per week, the elimination of bonuses and reductions in holiday pay. The company has also raised the possibility of closing two plants if necessary.
“The situation is serious, and we don’t want to sugarcoat anything,” Lümali said. But he argued that securing the future of the premium carmaker required investment, competitive products, innovation, clear strategies and faster decision-making rather than an overriding focus on cuts and workforce reductions.
“Anyone who believes that the future of a premium manufacturer can be secured primarily through longer working hours in partially underutilised factories in Germany is oversimplifying things,” he said. “The transformation cannot be successfully implemented against the will of the employees – only with them.”
Lümali said employees had already demonstrated flexibility, made financial contributions and supported the company’s transformation while delivering results under difficult conditions. He said the works council was willing to discuss productivity and competitiveness, but insisted that any agreement on employee concessions must also include commitments on investment, products, employment and German production sites.
The dispute also concerns payments and benefits received by Mercedes employees during more profitable years. In 2025, these included one-off payments of €600 and €650, a profit-sharing bonus of €3,139, a salary increase, holiday pay, a Christmas bonus, up to eight additional days of leave and a bonus equivalent to 18.4% of an employee’s individual salary.
Asked whether such benefits indicated that employees were living beyond their means, Lümali rejected the suggestion. He said the company had achieved exceptional profits in recent years through the work of its highly qualified employees, adding that profit-sharing and collectively agreed benefits were based on agreements between management and employee representatives.
He argued that retrospectively portraying those payments as excessive was inconsistent with the workforce’s contribution to the company’s success.
Despite the prospect of restructuring, Lümali said the works council’s objective remained to preserve Mercedes-Benz’s German operations and secure employment, production, research and development in the country. He acknowledged the need to improve competitiveness but said the future of the plants would depend on more than working hours and labour costs.
He called for competitive energy prices, faster approval procedures, infrastructure investment and an active industrial policy, arguing that responsibility for maintaining Germany’s industrial production should be shared by companies, politicians and employees.
Lümali also questioned whether the company’s leadership was doing enough to maintain workforce confidence. During recent days of action, he said, employees had communicated their expectations of Källenius, including a convincing long-term strategy, stronger commitment to growth and technology initiatives, and a clear plan for securing German locations.
“Trust is not built through pressure, but through transparent decisions and credible future prospects,” he said. “Threats destroy trust and unity.”
He acknowledged that Källenius faced economic and capital-market pressures but said these did not justify disregarding the system of employee participation in corporate decision-making. Although urgent action was necessary, he argued, restructuring should produce sustainable solutions rather than rushed decisions.
Lümali said discussions with management were under way but emphasised that they had not yet become formal negotiations. While recognising Källenius’s responsibility to communicate the seriousness of the situation, he said management and employee representatives differed over how the company should respond.
“Our aim is to take the economic challenges seriously without leaving the employees to foot the bill in the end,” he said.
