Yes, it is. A lot of the issues found in modern science with replicable studies comes down to the publish-or-peril approach. If you have academics on temporary postdocs having to publish X papers to get an extension, find a new postdoc, or maybe get a professorship then you're going to have issues. Add to this the lack of incentives to replicate papers under this stress and people build up on top of them rather than validating them first. Especially when the studies are expensive/time-consuming with MRI machines etc.
> Stop with the meta bullshit
The impact bad research has both financially and in society is huge. For example the issue recently with Alzheimer's where loads of work was built up on a 2006 seminal study that wasn't replicable (because of academic fraud). Finding incentives to catch bad science early is important.
I have no idea what the rest of your message is about.
My wife is an academic and is repeatedly raising the issue of the replication crisis in medical fields too. This is an issue across all of academia and isn't just an issue with flawed statistics but pressures to publish, a lack of replication in the peer review process, a lack of replication by subsequent work building on that original research, using more tools like Machine Learning, etc...
Metascience is a growing field at many top universities because of this issue and the belief that modern science may be very flawed right now.
> Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost"
It really is! To leave a union you just leave. You'll miss out on some perks like topping up your unemployment insurance though.
> Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not.
You can get most of the perks without being a member, because membership is anonymous within companies and unions have argued that everyone receives the benefits due to this! So you can have most of the perks of a union without paying "taxes", but I think it's fair to chip into the pot.
> In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.
Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost. You could leave your US citizenship too, I guess, by moving. But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?
> The unions here are not acting as representatives of Tesla workers to negotiate with Tesla, but rather as cartels trying to prevent two willing parties (Tesla and its employees) from doing business without cutting in the union.
Out of interest, how are the unions trying to cut in? And what exactly are they "cutting in"?
Can you realistically have a vote to stop paying taxes or to smoke weed?
Because Seko could have a vote to deliver to Tesla if they wanted, but ultimately the Unions are on the employees side so we're okay with their decisions.
> The point is that it's not Tesla's employees that are behind it.
How do you know this though? Union membership is anonymous. You have no reason to tell your employer you're a member. If there's a strike all employees can legally take part to help stop identification of members. Every member of Tesla could be a union member saying they aren't to avoid pushback by Tesla. That's just as likely as none of them being a member.
So the first thing I think of here is Toys'R'Us when they tried to break their strikes. Banks stopped processing payments. So if they did try this, they would be unable to pay for any of those things! Plus most employees like their unions. They offer a lot of perks beyond what companies offer. So they'd probably not find any staff.
Unions offer a lot of support to individuals that mean you don't need to save as much of a safety net for yourself. The most obvious one is unemployment insurance, I get 80% of my salary for 12 months if I lose my job until I find a new one which the Union will support. They also provide me with beneficial mortgage rates because I'm financially more secure with that insurance.
A lot of it comes down to the mental models of Unions - they're very different depending on the country you work in. A lot of people just can't believe a system with powerful Unions can be a good non-corrupt system for employees and employers.
Sweden has a small government approach to labour, the idea is that Unions are more agile and closer to the market so they are given the power to negotiate. The legislation is basically "there are no laws, speak to the Unions and sign the agreement". So yes you're correct they aren't breaking any laws, but neither are the Unions for not working for companies without a collective bargaining agreement.
This system has worked well for a hundred years with Sweden ranking highly across most metrics for work satisfaction, happiness, etc... however every now and then an American company comes over and tries to challenge it. These companies get sympathy striked into the ground, sign a collective agreement, and live happily ever after.
Some members of the Tesla servicing stations are members of a union but the numbers aren't public because an employer cannot ask who is in a union
> IF Metall is the union being supported and merely wants to represent them
Yes, IF Metall is the largest union for that type of work in Sweden. They do represent some employees.
> more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market
Correct, no-one wants this because the entire labour system is built around collective agreements. Allowing companies to break these rules is bad.
> Tesla needs to just cut a deal here
Yep, or leave! Both works well, the only option that's not viable is to be allowed to break the Nordic/Swedish working model
> all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers
Some are represented
> who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything
Again, Unions represent employees and all members of the company including non-union members can strike because it's illegal to ask or identify who is or isn't in a Union. Which is why this number of non-Union members is mostly made up rubbish by pro-Tesla sites, the number is unknown.
If you're a member of a union and the union says please don't do X, and you're aligned with the union, then you will be happy to not do X. This isn't a forceful action nor is it the workers decision, it's this greyish thing between the black and white. The members of the union could have a vote and change direction to do X if they wanted, but why would workers defend a company trying to get around a model that's resulted in one of the best working environments in the world?
That's not related to this issue. Sweden loses if they allow multinationals to break the Swedish Model. If Tesla decided to never sell a car to Sweden, which is within their rights, Sweden would still have won if the labour market remains in tact. Personally I am 99.9% sure that Tesla will fold eventually, the question is how much PR damage will they have created for themselves in the Nordics/EU before they fold.
The point I wanted to clarify is that if I worked at PostNord I couldn't decide to stop sending post to a company I disagree with, or a political party I dislike, etc. This is union-led industrial action. I saw some confusion in other posts on the topic where people thought this was individual action.
This article uses the words "workers' decision" several times which sounds like individual workers are deciding to not deliver to Tesla. The truth is that a sympathy strike involves a union deciding to take industrial action against an organisation to support another unions industrial action. So these workers are legally striking against Tesla too, it's not just an ad hoc decision made by individuals.
PostNord employees could not just decide to stop sending parcels to a company without it being part of a directed strike.