Tesla labour dispute triggers Nordic sympathy strikes(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Tesla labour dispute triggers Nordic sympathy strikes
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-labour-dispute-ignites-nordic-sympathy-strikes-2023-12-07/
12 comments
It's weird that abusing market power is viewed as fine when labor does it but bad when companies do it. It should just be viewed as bad all around. Imagine having a dispute with your grocer and coming home to find your ISP, gas company, mechanic, and water company all refusing to do business with you until you signed whatever bad deal your grocer was trying to force upon you. This is exactly equivalent to what is happening here but from companies instead of labor.
Part of the problem is that it's inherent that corporations will generally have more power than individual employees. So there is no option where both sides don't use market power. The only question is whether employees band together to match the power that corporations already have.
In Ethics class we would refer to this as a fallacy of relevance. Repeat after me "Be it resolved that two wrongs don't make a right."
A better analogy is self defense. In the same way that it's not wrong to use violence against someone who is using violence against you, it's not wrong for people to band together to protect themselves against people exerting power over them.
You would be right if the government did not exist. unfortunately for your argument the government does exist and is the entity we have ceded most of our violence rights to. You are not in the kind of immediate and unforseen risk situation that would jistify return of those rights to you to ise so your analogy falls flat. Instead you are in the situation where the governmemt is responsible for regulating. So i say again, is weird they regulated one way for labor and another for business. Why is thug like abise ok for labor and not ok for business?it should be illegal for all.
Your comparison doesn't hold because stupid legal decisions aside corporations are not people.
It would be like comparing throwing a broken appliance out to execution.
They're superficially similar but that similarity is totally irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the people of this region are coordinating to resist the behavior of a business that they consider to be unscrupulous. It appears that they are quite successful in this endeavor.
Like it or not this sends a message companies who want to do business here - you can do business the way the people around here want or you can fuck off.
As a person who isn't a corporation that's really refreshing to see.
It would be like comparing throwing a broken appliance out to execution.
They're superficially similar but that similarity is totally irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the people of this region are coordinating to resist the behavior of a business that they consider to be unscrupulous. It appears that they are quite successful in this endeavor.
Like it or not this sends a message companies who want to do business here - you can do business the way the people around here want or you can fuck off.
As a person who isn't a corporation that's really refreshing to see.
Whether corporations are people or not is irrelevant because the corporations are acting together to abuse market power at the behest of the people running the corporations to maximize benefit for the people running and owning the corporations, exactly like how the unions are acting together to abuse market power to maximize benefit for their members. All the businesses I mentioned could be unincorporated sole proprietorships and it would still be illegal on the business side and so yes it is still weird that it's legal and ok on the labor side.
At the end of the day, in all examples, the mechanism is to corner the market in something and withhold it until price for that something is pushed above the competitive price shrinking the total benefit available and causing dead weight loss to society. The result is the same regardless of who is doing it. Less for everyone, artificially more for the group that cornered the market at the expense of literally everyone else. So I'll say again, it's weird that it's ok for labor to do this and not ok for companies. It should be not ok for everyone because it's universally bad (this doesn't mean there aren't other bad things corporations do that don't hit the threshold of illegality for market power abuse that we should also be trying to fix, it just says uncompetitively withholding is a bad method of trying to deal with those things)
At the end of the day, in all examples, the mechanism is to corner the market in something and withhold it until price for that something is pushed above the competitive price shrinking the total benefit available and causing dead weight loss to society. The result is the same regardless of who is doing it. Less for everyone, artificially more for the group that cornered the market at the expense of literally everyone else. So I'll say again, it's weird that it's ok for labor to do this and not ok for companies. It should be not ok for everyone because it's universally bad (this doesn't mean there aren't other bad things corporations do that don't hit the threshold of illegality for market power abuse that we should also be trying to fix, it just says uncompetitively withholding is a bad method of trying to deal with those things)
Any time you see someone more successful than you they're doing something you're not.
From every metric I've seen the Nordic countries are doing great.
So it sounds like they're doing what's working.
When do you think this sort of collectivist behavior from the people of Nordic will backfire for them?
From every metric I've seen the Nordic countries are doing great.
So it sounds like they're doing what's working.
When do you think this sort of collectivist behavior from the people of Nordic will backfire for them?
It's not correct to look at it as the basket of things a country is doing is correct or not because different policies have different effects that may be at odds with the effects of the individual policy you are talking about. The Nordics do a bunch of things right, this is not one of them.
Company towns are generally frowned upon in the US just like sympathy strikes.
> Sympathy strikes are generally legal in Nordic countries, unlike in the U.S. where they are largely prohibited.
Not much information available, but it wouldn't surprise me if the unions had a cause about doing business with companies that are Nordic + unionized. In which case, doing business with Tesla is in violation of it.
But I mean if Tesla doesn't want to be striked upon they should probably create some kind of contract that prohibts the other party from striking.
> Sympathy strikes are generally legal in Nordic countries, unlike in the U.S. where they are largely prohibited.
Not much information available, but it wouldn't surprise me if the unions had a cause about doing business with companies that are Nordic + unionized. In which case, doing business with Tesla is in violation of it.
But I mean if Tesla doesn't want to be striked upon they should probably create some kind of contract that prohibts the other party from striking.
[deleted]