Swedish court rules against Tesla in dispute with postal service over deliveries(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Swedish court rules against Tesla in dispute with postal service over deliveries
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-court-rules-against-tesla-dispute-with-postal-service-over-deliveries-2023-12-07/
408 comments
At this point the famed Swedish model shows its limits, IMHO.
> "It's about the Swedish collective agreement model, and there is a consensus on it, both politically and between the parties in the labour market, Seko's president Gabriella Lavecchia told Reuters by email.
And yet this is not a legal obligation, as far as I understand, and Tesla is acting lawfully. So the model seems to be that there are unwritten rules and that the whole country is allowed to club you into submission if you don't follow them.
At this point it seems that at least some form of legal obligation (you give an example) would clarify what is understood to be compulsory... Transparent rule of law is also a model for a good reason.
From the outside it's a little odd (at least to me) that the Swedes seem adamant that Tesla must accept a collective agreement and also that there is no need to make that the law. That's the peculiarity, IMHO.
> "It's about the Swedish collective agreement model, and there is a consensus on it, both politically and between the parties in the labour market, Seko's president Gabriella Lavecchia told Reuters by email.
And yet this is not a legal obligation, as far as I understand, and Tesla is acting lawfully. So the model seems to be that there are unwritten rules and that the whole country is allowed to club you into submission if you don't follow them.
At this point it seems that at least some form of legal obligation (you give an example) would clarify what is understood to be compulsory... Transparent rule of law is also a model for a good reason.
From the outside it's a little odd (at least to me) that the Swedes seem adamant that Tesla must accept a collective agreement and also that there is no need to make that the law. That's the peculiarity, IMHO.
There are unwritten rules everywhere. The nice thing is that when the unions in Sweden do strike unlike in the US where maybe they will get some support, there is massive groundswell of support behind them to actually get the company to make a change.
The fact that the whole country collectively agrees gives the workers far more power.
The fact that the whole country collectively agrees gives the workers far more power.
How does a country give workers more power? By creating a business-friendly environment. The more companies operate in your country, the more choice of employers.
Treated badly? Go work for a competitor. That’s how you put pressure on companies to treat staff better.
Treated badly? Go work for a competitor. That’s how you put pressure on companies to treat staff better.
Well, we see how that's going in America and it's a race to the bottom. 10 years experience, bachelor's degree required, starting pay of $35k/yr.
A society cannot rely on a business whose sole motivation is profitability to provide power to what they view as a liability, not an asset.
A society cannot rely on a business whose sole motivation is profitability to provide power to what they view as a liability, not an asset.
Plus the US is very work cultured your entire identify is what your job is. In many countries of the world a job is a job and your life and family are the important things not your job. Of course we need money but what is the point if your life is crap!
It's not up to a company to "provide power" to its employees.
It's up to the company to fulfil its mutually-agreed terms of contract to those employees. Which in most cases means giving them the dignity and security of a monthly paycheque.
In a free market economy (that isn't overly constrained by government and unions), employees can gain all the "power" they like by starting a company of their own, and setting whatever rules they like.
If you're seeking "power" without taking responsbility (i.e. running your own compnany), sounds like you want to indulge in politics, as opposed to a good-faith employee-employer relationship.
It's up to the company to fulfil its mutually-agreed terms of contract to those employees. Which in most cases means giving them the dignity and security of a monthly paycheque.
In a free market economy (that isn't overly constrained by government and unions), employees can gain all the "power" they like by starting a company of their own, and setting whatever rules they like.
If you're seeking "power" without taking responsbility (i.e. running your own compnany), sounds like you want to indulge in politics, as opposed to a good-faith employee-employer relationship.
America is in top three nations of the world for wages (OECD 2022). Sweden is 18th.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average...
That's not "wages", that's "average wages". I don't expect much but I at least expect a passing knowledge of statistics and intellectual honesty. If most people have nothing and one billionaire joins the group that doesn't make everyone rather wealthy even if it drastically raises the average.
Keep in mind that there was a massive rise in C-level and especially CEO compensation compared to most other wages. Arguably this can be traced back to a specific book being rather popular among wealthy investors and entrepreneurs that argued CEOs are underpaid, which many CEOs agreed with and convinced the investors to also agree with. But this does nothing for the wages of anyone outside this group because C-level compensation is orders of magnitude removed from that of anyone lower in the ladder.
Keep in mind that there was a massive rise in C-level and especially CEO compensation compared to most other wages. Arguably this can be traced back to a specific book being rather popular among wealthy investors and entrepreneurs that argued CEOs are underpaid, which many CEOs agreed with and convinced the investors to also agree with. But this does nothing for the wages of anyone outside this group because C-level compensation is orders of magnitude removed from that of anyone lower in the ladder.
Okay then, so you'd prefer to analyse median wages, rather than mean wages?
The US has the 3rd highest median wages, and Sweden has the 14th highest median wage.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
The US has the 3rd highest median wages, and Sweden has the 14th highest median wage.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
Wages on their own mean nothing.
The US is #21 on the Human Development Index, a holistic measure of quality of life. Sweden is #7.
I mean, in your list Iceland is the number one nation for wages which very much follows a similar Scandinavian model.
An island that formerly was a tax haven isn’t a great example
Unless you propose that there should be more corporations than people, I don't see how the number of companies significantly alters the power dynamics. We literally have industries where the number of job openings vastly outnumber the available talent and instead of better working conditions or compensation or participation this only seems to result in those companies pushing for the softening of immigration laws and reducing protections. The only times we see workers gain leverage is when they are able to form unions and use collective bargaining to avoid being fired. Even for superstar individuals there are limits to what they can demand for themselves and even then it doesn't trickle down to the other employees.
There's no market incentive for companies to "treat staff better" (which is really an oversimplification when it comes to basic things like following workplace safety laws, providing paid medical leave and health insurance, not cheap window dressing like foosball machines and free energy drinks) beyond the minimum you can get away with. Payroll is one of the biggest cost factors in most businesses if not the biggest. That means companies are always incentivized to cut labor costs where possible. This is why you say mass layoffs followed by share price increases.
If you really want "the market" to fix this problem, ban individual ownership of corporations and require all businesses to act as worker cooperatives. This gives every worker equal power in whichever business they decide to join and gives the owners an incentive to treat workers better because the workers are the owners. You could also do this incrementally by offering public grants to creating cooperatives or turning existing corporations into cooperatives (e.g. by creating a subsidized program to allow workers to "buy out" a bankrupt employer).
We don't want a top-down autocratic state so why should we accept a top-down autocratic corporation ruled by a single owner or a non-working board that is only interested in the resale value of the company, not its long-term profitability or sustainability?
There's no market incentive for companies to "treat staff better" (which is really an oversimplification when it comes to basic things like following workplace safety laws, providing paid medical leave and health insurance, not cheap window dressing like foosball machines and free energy drinks) beyond the minimum you can get away with. Payroll is one of the biggest cost factors in most businesses if not the biggest. That means companies are always incentivized to cut labor costs where possible. This is why you say mass layoffs followed by share price increases.
If you really want "the market" to fix this problem, ban individual ownership of corporations and require all businesses to act as worker cooperatives. This gives every worker equal power in whichever business they decide to join and gives the owners an incentive to treat workers better because the workers are the owners. You could also do this incrementally by offering public grants to creating cooperatives or turning existing corporations into cooperatives (e.g. by creating a subsidized program to allow workers to "buy out" a bankrupt employer).
We don't want a top-down autocratic state so why should we accept a top-down autocratic corporation ruled by a single owner or a non-working board that is only interested in the resale value of the company, not its long-term profitability or sustainability?
That solution relies on a lot of things having a greater effect than they actually do. It fits the pie in the sky solutions libertarians seem to like so much. Such as high healthcare costs can be fixed by creating greater choice via lowering the barrier of entry to becoming a doctor. The free market, in fact, is not actually the solution of all of society’s ills. Unions raise wages. Anti union laws and or lack of unions results in lower wages. People also just don’t have the kind of job mobility libertarians assume.
- Libertarians assume more job mobility than actually exists.
- Libertarians overlook all the problems with markets that Adam Smith identified. It's as though they never read the second half of the book.
- Libertarians overlook how existing players raise barriers to entry for existing markets.
- Libertarians overlook the collusion between market players and government to share power and wealth between both.
- Libertarians make many, many, many assumptions that are demonstrably false.
At this point all we can assume is libertarians know all this, yet keep advocating for libertarianism because it is they who seek the power and the wealth. That is to say, the libertarians are the bad guys, or, they're the stupid guys.
- Libertarians overlook all the problems with markets that Adam Smith identified. It's as though they never read the second half of the book.
- Libertarians overlook how existing players raise barriers to entry for existing markets.
- Libertarians overlook the collusion between market players and government to share power and wealth between both.
- Libertarians make many, many, many assumptions that are demonstrably false.
At this point all we can assume is libertarians know all this, yet keep advocating for libertarianism because it is they who seek the power and the wealth. That is to say, the libertarians are the bad guys, or, they're the stupid guys.
Libertarians are just people who thought they could learn everything they needed from studying economics without learning any history or sociology.
Everything has a simple solution until humans get complicated.
Everything has a simple solution until humans get complicated.
That's an excellent summary!
The point of the Swedish model is to avoid micro management from the state and instead of mandating work regulations through law businesses and unions can negotiate sector specific agreements that suits the very people and companies that it affects.
Businesses and unions are better at knowing the needs of companies and people than what any government is.
Not everything has to be achieved through laws.
In Sweden we generally prefer to avoid laws whenever possible, deferring to best practices, common sense and business agreements.
That’s a much much nicer model than what we now get from eg EU where we get micro-level law making that deals with everything and more
Businesses and unions are better at knowing the needs of companies and people than what any government is.
Not everything has to be achieved through laws.
In Sweden we generally prefer to avoid laws whenever possible, deferring to best practices, common sense and business agreements.
That’s a much much nicer model than what we now get from eg EU where we get micro-level law making that deals with everything and more
It's not micro management, it's a major point. Again, it looks like the consensus is that Tesla must accept a collective agreement (content to be left to the parties to negotiate). So why is that not mandated? IMHO, you can't be outraged that Tesla is refusing, or at least trying not to have one, when the law effectively says that they don't have to.
The level of reactions against Tesla does not make the system look 'nicer' than others: Maybe effective but actually quite brutal.
The level of reactions against Tesla does not make the system look 'nicer' than others: Maybe effective but actually quite brutal.
Who said Sweden does things this way in order to look nice?
Not relying on laws like this allows for more adaptability to local conditions or preferences, if the system allows this, while also having mechanisms for enforcement when a company has simply decided "we don't do business that way, and we don't care if that runs counter to the local norms".
Not relying on laws like this allows for more adaptability to local conditions or preferences, if the system allows this, while also having mechanisms for enforcement when a company has simply decided "we don't do business that way, and we don't care if that runs counter to the local norms".
It’s there if employees want it and in eg many smaller companies there are no such agreements.
It’s up to the companies and unions to handle.
When Tesla has refused that for 5 years + have a global policy to refuse, then they are not handling it, which makes companies and unions react.
To be clear: Companies in Sweden largely prefer this model over one governed by law.
It’s up to the companies and unions to handle.
When Tesla has refused that for 5 years + have a global policy to refuse, then they are not handling it, which makes companies and unions react.
To be clear: Companies in Sweden largely prefer this model over one governed by law.
> The level of reactions against Tesla does not make the system look 'nicer' than others: Maybe effective but actually quite brutal.
You went from calling this a bit “odd” and “a peculiarity” to “actually quite brutal” in the span of two comments. Jesus Christ the level of JAQing off in these Tesla threads from “the outside” (I wonder where) is insane.
You went from calling this a bit “odd” and “a peculiarity” to “actually quite brutal” in the span of two comments. Jesus Christ the level of JAQing off in these Tesla threads from “the outside” (I wonder where) is insane.
I haven’t seen anyone outraged with tesla. If anything, we swedes are confounded that tesla can’t seem to understand how running a business works in sweden. It’s not that hard.
And just like tesla have the right to refuse signing, the people of sweden has the right to strike.
And just like tesla have the right to refuse signing, the people of sweden has the right to strike.
>The level of reactions against Tesla does not make the system look 'nicer' than others
It's not supposed to be nice. Swedish labour has understood a simple reality, you don't fight on your opponents terms. Elon Musk has a competitive advantage at hiring lawyers and buying politicians. So they pick the battle where they can actually win, collectively on the factory floor.
It's not supposed to be nice. Swedish labour has understood a simple reality, you don't fight on your opponents terms. Elon Musk has a competitive advantage at hiring lawyers and buying politicians. So they pick the battle where they can actually win, collectively on the factory floor.
It's actually really simple: nobody is being forced. Tesla doesn't have to accept a collective agreement, they can just pull out of Sweden and nobody would bat an eye. But what they can't do is to expect Swedes to work as though they are Americans on American soil. It's Tesla that is the guest here, and as a guest you abide by the customs of your host. Don't like it? Don't visit.
No one is outraged, just confused.
It's simple. Above a certain size, you either get an agreement or no one will do business with you.
Put this way, it should tickle every libertarian mind. Free actors operating in an open market.
It's simple. Above a certain size, you either get an agreement or no one will do business with you.
Put this way, it should tickle every libertarian mind. Free actors operating in an open market.
> In Sweden we generally prefer to avoid laws whenever possible, deferring to best practices, common sense and business agreements.
I think I would've agreed with this sentiment in the past.
However, the last 7-8 years in the US have shown that (at least in politics) rules need to be spelled out. We had a bunch of informal agreements of what people in certain positions should do or not do, but as we have seen someone will eventually come around and look to test the limits.
It looks like Elon Musk is looking to test the limits of business expectations in Sweden. I hope Sweden fares better than the US did when the political expectations were being challenged.
I think I would've agreed with this sentiment in the past.
However, the last 7-8 years in the US have shown that (at least in politics) rules need to be spelled out. We had a bunch of informal agreements of what people in certain positions should do or not do, but as we have seen someone will eventually come around and look to test the limits.
It looks like Elon Musk is looking to test the limits of business expectations in Sweden. I hope Sweden fares better than the US did when the political expectations were being challenged.
> However, the last 7-8 years in the US have shown that (at least in politics) rules need to be spelled out. We had a bunch of informal agreements of what people in certain positions should do or not do, but as we have seen someone will eventually come around and look to test the limits.
People coming round to test the limits is fine, the problem is that in the US parts of the ruling class has decided the (short term) benefits of tolerating severe transgression to those limits is worth it, in effect simply removing the limits.
The problem is simply that limits don't work if there is no the willingness by the people in power to enforce them, and this regardless of if them are informal or formalised limits. Many things things Trump did were simply illegal, but since Congress didn't impeach for these crimes they just become "controversial actions".
People coming round to test the limits is fine, the problem is that in the US parts of the ruling class has decided the (short term) benefits of tolerating severe transgression to those limits is worth it, in effect simply removing the limits.
The problem is simply that limits don't work if there is no the willingness by the people in power to enforce them, and this regardless of if them are informal or formalised limits. Many things things Trump did were simply illegal, but since Congress didn't impeach for these crimes they just become "controversial actions".
I would also add that the laws in the US are very hostile to labor. For example, it is extremely difficult to organize a workplace. Even if a workplace is organized, companies can just refuse to negotiate a contract. See Starbucks…
Every culture has its own unwritten rules and customs. If you want to do business in a foreign culture, it's your responsibility to learn those customs and adapt to them. If you refuse to adapt and your business suffers because of the backlash, the cause of failure was your cultural insensitivity and/or ignorance.
> Every culture has its own unwritten rules and customs.
Many cultures have bribery as an unwritten rule and custom. Every official you run across is expecting a small bribe.
Should companies adopt that culture as well?
Many cultures have bribery as an unwritten rule and custom. Every official you run across is expecting a small bribe.
Should companies adopt that culture as well?
That's a good question almost every major international business struggles with. As far as I know, the usual answers are paying the required bribes quietly and refusing to do business in that culture. The third option, trying to do business without paying bribes, rarely works.
I'll argue a point I don't really agree with, namely that in this case bribes are fair.
Coiuntries are sovereign. Foreigners don't decide, that's a key outcome of the thirty years' war. So if you go to X, the polite, proper, non-imperialist thing is to follow accepted custom.
Of course, that raises the question of what "accepted custom" means. It's not clear to me that bribing is really accepted in the countries where it's a custom, widely accepted, rather than being something people do reluctantly.
Coiuntries are sovereign. Foreigners don't decide, that's a key outcome of the thirty years' war. So if you go to X, the polite, proper, non-imperialist thing is to follow accepted custom.
Of course, that raises the question of what "accepted custom" means. It's not clear to me that bribing is really accepted in the countries where it's a custom, widely accepted, rather than being something people do reluctantly.
Then you can for moral reasons refuse to do business there because you don't feel like playing in a crooked game. That in turn might have the effect of improving the world a bit.
Of course you can do that. If you do that, what else will you also do?
For example: Will you use oil from Saudi Arabia for your business? You could refrain because so much of the payment gets sidetracked to those 4000 princes, or because refraining brakes the climate changes a little bit, or even both.
The list goes on. There's much that's bad in the world.
Deciding to be principled about bribes and morally flexible about the rest seems… okay to me. Not particularly bad.
For example: Will you use oil from Saudi Arabia for your business? You could refrain because so much of the payment gets sidetracked to those 4000 princes, or because refraining brakes the climate changes a little bit, or even both.
The list goes on. There's much that's bad in the world.
Deciding to be principled about bribes and morally flexible about the rest seems… okay to me. Not particularly bad.
Without commenting on whether they normatively should adopt that culture, they should not be surprised if refusal to adapt to that custom results in business failure.
> Should companies adopt that culture as well?
The only reason international firms are sometimes a little circumspect about that is because they also operate in home countries where bribery even in foreign countries is often against the socially enforced (written, in this case, but what is important is the enforced part, not written vs. unwritten) rules and customs.
E.g., https://www.trade.gov/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act
The only reason international firms are sometimes a little circumspect about that is because they also operate in home countries where bribery even in foreign countries is often against the socially enforced (written, in this case, but what is important is the enforced part, not written vs. unwritten) rules and customs.
E.g., https://www.trade.gov/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act
That actually seems like a really interesting question without an immediately obvious answer.
> So the model seems that there are unwritten rules and that the whole country is allowed to club you into submission if you don't follow them.
You mean like rent and monopoly seeking and corporations try to buy politicians and eliminate competitors so they can force consumers into submission?
Looks like a case of using the power you have, like corporations do. Why do you take a dim view of collective action when capitalism is a system that is slanted toward rich corporations?
Also Musk here is typically full of shit: he makes various libertarian noises but Sweden's system is largely untouched by government, it's an understanding between larger corporations and workers (unions). Sweden even got an opt out from EU minimum wage laws to preserve this understanding. Musk should be rejoicing the unfettered capitalism, but in reality he just wants everything his own way, and thinks he can get it.
You mean like rent and monopoly seeking and corporations try to buy politicians and eliminate competitors so they can force consumers into submission?
Looks like a case of using the power you have, like corporations do. Why do you take a dim view of collective action when capitalism is a system that is slanted toward rich corporations?
Also Musk here is typically full of shit: he makes various libertarian noises but Sweden's system is largely untouched by government, it's an understanding between larger corporations and workers (unions). Sweden even got an opt out from EU minimum wage laws to preserve this understanding. Musk should be rejoicing the unfettered capitalism, but in reality he just wants everything his own way, and thinks he can get it.
Tesla doesn't have to agree but then the workers don't have to stop striking. It's called collective bargaining for a reason. It's no less unreasonable for the workers to keep striking until Tesla gives up than it is for Tesla to try to have its way and sit on their thumbs until the strikes end. There's just no good outcome for Tesla in the latter case.
This isn't about some sort of grandiose libertarian stand. Whether this behavior by Tesla is influenced by Musk or not, it perfectly matches his attitude to workers' rights, consumer protection laws and so on. At one point he explicitly stated that the US Democrat party was being controlled by unions and class action lawyers. Contrast this with Musk's excuses for censoring Twitter in Turkey when the Turkish government threatened to block Twitter. He doesn't stand up to "bullies" or "authoritarians", he just doesn't like being told what he can or can't do by those he sees as beneath him (e.g. workers insisting on adherence to workplace safety laws or industry standard compensation schemes).
This isn't about some sort of grandiose libertarian stand. Whether this behavior by Tesla is influenced by Musk or not, it perfectly matches his attitude to workers' rights, consumer protection laws and so on. At one point he explicitly stated that the US Democrat party was being controlled by unions and class action lawyers. Contrast this with Musk's excuses for censoring Twitter in Turkey when the Turkish government threatened to block Twitter. He doesn't stand up to "bullies" or "authoritarians", he just doesn't like being told what he can or can't do by those he sees as beneath him (e.g. workers insisting on adherence to workplace safety laws or industry standard compensation schemes).
That kind of sounds like pretty much any society: lots of unwritten rules that can be costly to violate.
If you try to write down every case of being a jerk instead of just having a society-wide agreement "don't be an utter jerk", you wind up with lots of fine print, rich lawyers, and at least as many people still being jerks.
Consider the complexity of a vending machine vs. a can where people can leave their payments... Any society probably has places where you need the former, and places where you can get away with the latter, but I prefer those societies where most of the places in between are on the can end of the spectrum.
Consider the complexity of a vending machine vs. a can where people can leave their payments... Any society probably has places where you need the former, and places where you can get away with the latter, but I prefer those societies where most of the places in between are on the can end of the spectrum.
Martin Shkreli recently violated parole and "the whole country [i.e. internet] is allowed to club you into submission..." This is what's called public disgrace. Like when a murderous thug cop gets shanked in prison. Or that stupid kid who shot people with an assault rifle at a protest having zero future prospects. Nobody is obligated to do anything for jerks.
According to Tesla, the agreement which employees have in Sweden is already better than the minimum bar set by union, so Teslas issues appears to more out of principle than out of actual issues with the agreement itself. Or Tesla is lying and the agreement with employees is not actually better.
Swede here. That is what every company that doesn't want to play according to the Swedish model says. I worked at one of those companies and yes, pay and benefits were better, up until I reached a certain age where the "collective deal" would have been better for me. Was this tiny detail communicated clearly to me? Of course not, I heard it from a colleague who was older and had been at other companies. Was it a lie that "we have a better deal"? I wouldn't say so. Am I still at that company? No.
I’ve heard some form of this from every company fighting unions. If that’s really the case, wouldn’t it be beneficial to the finances of the company overall if the union is requesting less benefits?
Unions set the lower bar but if you want to be competitive you still offer higher rates. I guess Musk could sign this and give everyone a pay cut!
It depends on the contract negotiated by the union. In theory, the union can put a floor on pay, with cap and allow individual workers to negotiate higher wages if they are so inclined. The US sports leagues offer the best example of this.
Labor contracts cover a variety of issues, Tesla is cherry-picking their comparison IMO.
They have it better now, until they don't...
Who knows which change in the wind would make Musk change his opinion and make conditions worse (see "I'm a free speech absolutist (until I'm not, and I shut up every voice opposing me)".
With a collective agreement, he can throw as many tantrums he wants and the workers will be protected.
Who knows which change in the wind would make Musk change his opinion and make conditions worse (see "I'm a free speech absolutist (until I'm not, and I shut up every voice opposing me)".
With a collective agreement, he can throw as many tantrums he wants and the workers will be protected.
Does Tesla have a binding agreement with the workers on how to handle layoffs when business is bad?
Do they need to? That's what laws are for, in the case of Sweden it's the Employment Protection Act.
The union can negotiate a better deal but it's not wild west at-will employment like in the US.
The union can negotiate a better deal but it's not wild west at-will employment like in the US.
This is about mass layoffs, not terminating individual employees for "personal reasons".
I am not an expert, but I think the union claims that this is one thing that is now worse for the Spotify employees who are laid off?
Meaning, sure, there is a degree of basic legal protection, but during layoffs, having a collective bargaining agreement will give you better conditions than that?
I am not an expert, but I think the union claims that this is one thing that is now worse for the Spotify employees who are laid off?
Meaning, sure, there is a degree of basic legal protection, but during layoffs, having a collective bargaining agreement will give you better conditions than that?
This law also covers layoffs, even to the point where it dictates in what order employees can be laid off. In general the IF Metall collective agreements don't have any additional worker protections for the case of mass layoffs or individual terminations, they usually only cover temporary lay offs.
I haven't seen what they are actually asking for in the case of Tesla Sweden. In Germany the discussion is mostly related to wages, safety/accidents and shift planning.
I haven't seen what they are actually asking for in the case of Tesla Sweden. In Germany the discussion is mostly related to wages, safety/accidents and shift planning.
This is a massive simplification to the point of being misleading. Those laws are largely superseded by contract law, which is exactly why collective agreements are made, and the order in which layoffs are made are usually among the first to be negotiated. There are lawyers that base their entire careers on such matters.
Both parties act out of principles. The conflict is about power dynamics, first and foremost.
Yup, and one is the principles of a large car company from another country while the other is the social underpinnings of the countries entire labour market going back a century
That is exaggregated. This is IF Metall vs Tesla, not Sweden vs Tesla.
It isn't just IF Metall vs Tesla in practice. The result of this whole thing will impact Swedish labor standards as a whole by setting a critical precedent for both companies and unions. I'm not part of IF Metall, but also not naive enough to think this power struggle won't affect me or people I care about working in Sweden in the future.
It will affect you either way. It is difficult to tell exactly how but a union win will embolden the unions in Sweden general, and it is not certain that is an all out win. I realize that embolden is not a neutral word, but what is on the other side of the balance scale is investments in new jobs in Sweden vs elsewhere. Perhaps the balance will still be a net benefit to Sweden but we will see. I would have an easier time to understand the strike if it was about material conditions such as salary etc, but now it is an all-out power struggle about the type of agreement.
The fact that it will affect me either way is kind of my point in saying this is not just IF Metall vs Tesla. I consider a union win to be the best outcome here.
And for that reason it is the most likely outcome too. 'When in Rome...' Tesla has a lot to lose here: Norway, Sweden and to a lesser extent Denmark and Finland are early adopters and Tesla has large market share there. If they turn those countries against them it will have repercussions all over Europe. I'm in NL and have already heard people mention this conflict here and how it affects their view of Tesla as a brand and I think that's not unique.
Pick your battles and all that.
Pick your battles and all that.
Absolutely not. It will not embolden unions in Sweden at all. They fully expect to win. Contract law is the fundamental issue here.
The only realistic alternative is Tesla leaving Sweden. Prospective owners would have to import their cars from other countries. It's not hard to imagine that situation.
The only realistic alternative is Tesla leaving Sweden. Prospective owners would have to import their cars from other countries. It's not hard to imagine that situation.
Swede here. You are absolutely mistaken.
This is a huge deal in whole of Scandinavia. Today Finland unions joined in. The other day both Norway and Danish unions joined in. Before that, many other Swedish unions joined in.
This is Tesla versus the Scandinavian model rather.
This is a huge deal in whole of Scandinavia. Today Finland unions joined in. The other day both Norway and Danish unions joined in. Before that, many other Swedish unions joined in.
This is Tesla versus the Scandinavian model rather.
What I find interesting is that nobody at Tesla seems to be able to realize that when you go abroad you can't just export your home country's attitude to labor relations and that Tesla as a brand is suffering, not just in Sweden, but in the Nordics as a whole and in the rest of Europe as well. Even if they win they lose, and not just a little bit.
I’m sure plenty of folks at Tesla have come to this realization. I’m also sure they are smart enough to keep it themselves.
That's what you get when you're surrounded by 'yes' people. It's one of the main reasons that power corrupts: you no longer have anything to calibrate with.
I'm not a member of if metall (member of a lame yellow union) but I'm a Swede and it's us against Elon. I stand with the metallers in solidarity!
That's completely fine. I think many do. But it is not as black and white as some state it
I would say it's somewhere in the middle. You wrote that it's If Metall againt Tesla, but that's simply not the case. Other unions have already joined in so it's both technically incorrect and a bit misleading.
This would be true if there were not repercussions for the wider Swedish model, but since there are repercussions of rolling over it is Sweden vs Tesla
You can be certain that there are plenty of Swedes that see it differently, they are just less vocal
Perhaps? But everyone I've spoken to have been pretty vocal about it, although more along the lines of "Musk is a tool"
Tesla is a good opponent. Musk is generally despised. Electric vehicles are seen as fancy-pants toys for eco-freaks. So the usual people who come to the defense of big companies don't really feel the need to break a lance for Tesla.
This is specifically the case with the Sweden Democrats. A big motivator for them is a) bashing greens, and b) being a better alternative for the working class than the Social Democrats. Siding with a foreign billionaire over "salt-of-the-earth" workers is not a winning move.
This is specifically the case with the Sweden Democrats. A big motivator for them is a) bashing greens, and b) being a better alternative for the working class than the Social Democrats. Siding with a foreign billionaire over "salt-of-the-earth" workers is not a winning move.
I'm sure there are. To be frank, that matters little. All large employers are part of an employer's union. They don't see things differently. They all need this particular contract law intact.
Vocal or not, no one will not be able to affect this semi-voluntary system unless they control bascially the entire economy. This is unlikely to ever be the case, until maybe some supranational EU agreement changes the rules entirely.
Vocal or not, no one will not be able to affect this semi-voluntary system unless they control bascially the entire economy. This is unlikely to ever be the case, until maybe some supranational EU agreement changes the rules entirely.
If that were so, I think we wouldn't see other unions jumping to IF Metall's aid so readily
One issue with the work environment is that the workers get a 1 hour max time to find bugs. If they take longer than that they get a mark against them and may cause them to lose their job. This rewards workers who cheat and just send away the cars within the time constraint.
This is an example of something they want to fix.
This is an example of something they want to fix.
Somehow I'd bet a large amount of money that Tesla is lying, considering that's what Elon is best at.
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.
PostNord employees could not just decide to stop sending parcels to a company without it being part of a directed strike.
We say "voters" when we mean their representatives too so this doesn't strike me as surprising even if you could argue that it's not really their decision if it's a representative system rather than one of delegation (where each delegate represents one or more people directly who can at any time withdraw their vote from them and vote directly or choose a different delegate). I don't know how Swedish unions are structured though.
But yes, this is a solidarity strike and should be described as such to avoid confusion or ambiguity. It's interesting to see this play out as solidarity strikes are explicitly forbidden by law in my country (Germany) and while strikes and unions are granted many legal protections (e.g. a company under strike is not allowed to hire temporary strike breakers to substitute the striking workers, though they can use their existing non-striking workers), the law also explicitly restricts strikes to the company the workers are employed by. This is presumably meant to "tame" unions and prevent larger organized action, solidarity strikes or even a general strike (which would not be placing demands on the employer but e.g. the government).
But yes, this is a solidarity strike and should be described as such to avoid confusion or ambiguity. It's interesting to see this play out as solidarity strikes are explicitly forbidden by law in my country (Germany) and while strikes and unions are granted many legal protections (e.g. a company under strike is not allowed to hire temporary strike breakers to substitute the striking workers, though they can use their existing non-striking workers), the law also explicitly restricts strikes to the company the workers are employed by. This is presumably meant to "tame" unions and prevent larger organized action, solidarity strikes or even a general strike (which would not be placing demands on the employer but e.g. the government).
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.
In Sweden it’d be illegal if there was a collective bargaining agreement in place and the strike wasn’t aligned with the terms set out therein. The law explicitly doesn’t extend the same protections for companies that don’t sign a CBA.
> We say "voters" when we mean their representatives too
Not to say that this kind of decision tends to be non-biding and decided by vote. So all the influences the representatives have is deciding what vote to call; it's the workers casting the votes and deciding to follow them.
Saying the workers are doing it is more than fair.
Not to say that this kind of decision tends to be non-biding and decided by vote. So all the influences the representatives have is deciding what vote to call; it's the workers casting the votes and deciding to follow them.
Saying the workers are doing it is more than fair.
Doesn't the union have a vote to decide these things. So it is "workers decision" and that's actually very important as far as I can tell for the legal dispute. PostNord says it can't force it's workers to do something. So if it's not the workers decision it's PostNord's decision and that is very different.
> Doesn't the union have a vote to decide these things
This was decided by Seko's union board, the union that covers most PostNord and other delivery companies employees
> PostNord says it can't force it's workers to do something
It is illegal to prevent a strike, yes
> So if it's not the workers decision it's PostNord's decision and that is very different
It's the unions decision
https://www-seko-se.translate.goog/press-och-aktuellt/nyhete...
https://www.seko.se/siteassets/pdf-seko.se/avtal/konflikt/fa...
This was decided by Seko's union board, the union that covers most PostNord and other delivery companies employees
> PostNord says it can't force it's workers to do something
It is illegal to prevent a strike, yes
> So if it's not the workers decision it's PostNord's decision and that is very different
It's the unions decision
https://www-seko-se.translate.goog/press-och-aktuellt/nyhete...
https://www.seko.se/siteassets/pdf-seko.se/avtal/konflikt/fa...
So what you're saying is the union is forcing them to not deliver to Tesla?
As difficult as it might be to wrap our heads around it, no, there's no forcing, but it's the workers' collective decision as a union to not deliver to Tesla. A union is not some god-given abstract concept, it's a assembly of elected members of the workers which collectively voted to proceed this way. So the only "forcing" you could talk about is Tesla forcing them to accept unacceptable conditions, and even this wouldn't be really "forcing" - as we can see there are two parties negotiating their rights, all within their powers.
As difficult as it is to wrap our heads around. If no one is forcing them not to do it, it is their decision not to. So when they say employees decision it's true.
Collectively, not individually.
Forcing is a strong word here.
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?
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?
The union doesn't force anyone, it's a collective action, the workers are the union, they've decided to not deliver to Tesla because Tesla is infringing on the most fundamental labour right in Sweden.
Stop thinking about Nordic unions as a boogeyman, a mafia, or whatever other "oppressive" figure you want to make them out to be, the way unions work here is different than what you are probably used to. It's a cornerstone on how the labour market functions in the Nordics...
Stop thinking about Nordic unions as a boogeyman, a mafia, or whatever other "oppressive" figure you want to make them out to be, the way unions work here is different than what you are probably used to. It's a cornerstone on how the labour market functions in the Nordics...
>The union doesn't force anyone, it's a collective action, the workers are the union, they've decided to not deliver to Tesla because Tesla is infringing on the most fundamental labour right in Sweden.
That's a strange way of putting it. Is the us federal government notification not "forcing" anyone to pay taxes, or not smoke weed, because the us is a democracy and therefore it's "collective action"?
That's a strange way of putting it. Is the us federal government notification not "forcing" anyone to pay taxes, or not smoke weed, because the us is a democracy and therefore it's "collective action"?
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.
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.
> Can you realistically have a vote to stop paying taxes or to smoke weed?
This is inevitably going to turn into a quibble about whether representation and/or the electoral college constitutes "true" democracy, so I'm going to head that off by amending my previous comment to be at the state level (rather than the federal level). There's several states that had ballot measures on tax increases and/or marijuana legalization, and failed, for example:
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Marijuana_Legalization,_Prop...
https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Proposition_C,_Medical_Mari...
https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Initiative,_Questio...
In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.
This is inevitably going to turn into a quibble about whether representation and/or the electoral college constitutes "true" democracy, so I'm going to head that off by amending my previous comment to be at the state level (rather than the federal level). There's several states that had ballot measures on tax increases and/or marijuana legalization, and failed, for example:
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Marijuana_Legalization,_Prop...
https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Proposition_C,_Medical_Mari...
https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Initiative,_Questio...
In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.
> 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?
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?
>Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost.
Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost", otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect, rather than hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers.
>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?
Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not. I think taxes are a net positive for everyone in society, but I'm under no illusions that everyone's forced to pay it.
Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost", otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect, rather than hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers.
>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?
Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not. I think taxes are a net positive for everyone in society, but I'm under no illusions that everyone's forced to pay it.
> otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect,
Tesla is doing exactly this. It was the first thing they did. (The exact amount however is not public.)
It's called "breaking the strike" and has been used for over a century. It's par for the game and every union trains to expects it.
Tesla is doing exactly this. It was the first thing they did. (The exact amount however is not public.)
It's called "breaking the strike" and has been used for over a century. It's par for the game and every union trains to expects it.
> 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.
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.
What? I really do not understand the analogy, would be good to expand on how it relates to the current situation.
If you support taxes (or striking) and the government (or the union) forces you to pay taxes (or strike), you're not being "forced". So far so good. But what if you don't support taxes (or striking)? You might think taxes are a good thing and are necessary for a functioning society, but it's still pretty clear that for someone that doesn't want to pay taxes, they're forced to pay taxes.
>If [...] the government [...] forces you to pay taxes [...], you're not being "forced". So far so good.
Wat? In a discussion about if someone is being forced to take an action, consider not overloading the string "forced" with several meanings.
Wat? In a discussion about if someone is being forced to take an action, consider not overloading the string "forced" with several meanings.
Saying something isn't "forced" is the opposite of "overloading the string "forced" with several meanings". Also, in the broader context of this argument, I'm for an more expansive definition of "forced" and replying to someone who thinks whatever the union is doing isn't "forcing" anyone. Therefore I'm actually granting my opponent some leeway. If you think the above circumstance also counts as "forced", that actually supports my claim that whatever the union is doing is "forcing" people.
Sorry, that also doesn't parse into a comprehensible argument shrugs
If you don't want to strike, then don't strike. What is the issue here?
I'm under the impression that the strikes are being enforced by the union. In other words if you're a union member, and the union voted to strike, you can't unilaterally decide to continue working. Is this not the case?
How would that work with basic human rights such as the freedom of association? And how could it be enforced, under civil law?
Of course you are free to break the strike or whatever feels right for you. But it might not be compatible with membership in the union, so they may well exercise their right to not keep you around as a member if you are actively trying to sabotage their work.
Of course you are free to break the strike or whatever feels right for you. But it might not be compatible with membership in the union, so they may well exercise their right to not keep you around as a member if you are actively trying to sabotage their work.
You can work, you can't be part of the union. Not being a member doesn't remove any benefits the union might negotiate with the employer, you just don't have access to the perks of the union (higher income insurance is usually the most important one).
I suggest learning more about the Swedish model before spouting opinions on how things work here, you don't understand the system but feels entitled to argue on your assumptions.
I suggest learning more about the Swedish model before spouting opinions on how things work here, you don't understand the system but feels entitled to argue on your assumptions.
The whole point as that no one is forced. Just like strike breakers worked for tesla, they could work for postnord.
Of course, postnord is free to not accept strike breakers.
Of course, postnord is free to not accept strike breakers.
Tesla is invited to the Storting (the Norwegian parliament) for an introduction to the rules of the Norwegian labor market.
https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/zEpyow/arbeiderpartiet-hasteinn... (in Norwegian).
https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/zEpyow/arbeiderpartiet-hasteinn... (in Norwegian).
There is a lot of guessing among the comments in these threads.
It is not PostNord's decision. Striking is a constituional right in Sweden and it would be illegal for PostNord to prevent it.
It is not PostNord's decision. Striking is a constituional right in Sweden and it would be illegal for PostNord to prevent it.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, that sounds absolutely right to me. This isn’t a decision by PostNord.
> a sympathy strike involves a union deciding to take industrial action against an organisation to support another unions industrial action
Interestingly that's not quite what's happening either. The workers in question are not in a union. IF Metall is the union being supported, and merely wants to represent them (more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market).
Everyone is just nuts here. Tesla needs to just cut a deal here, but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption, all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything is just batshit.
Interestingly that's not quite what's happening either. The workers in question are not in a union. IF Metall is the union being supported, and merely wants to represent them (more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market).
Everyone is just nuts here. Tesla needs to just cut a deal here, but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption, all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything is just batshit.
My understanding is that the various unions view Tesla’s actions as a threat to how labour works in Sweden. There apparently isn’t even a minimum wage in the country as everything is governed by these collective agreements. So if they let Tesla come in and not play by the rules it could open the floodgates for other large corporations to come in and do the same, slowly eroding the system.
Yeah I think that's correct. 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.
I had no idea that unions could operate like this. I thought unions were tools to gain workers leverage against their employers, which I obviously support. I find this cartel action repulsive and I don't see how it could be done here in the US without violating anti trust.
I had no idea that unions could operate like this. I thought unions were tools to gain workers leverage against their employers, which I obviously support. I find this cartel action repulsive and I don't see how it could be done here in the US without violating anti trust.
So you support workers gaining leverage with the help of unions, but when the workers actually try gaining leverage with the help of unions, you call them names. That's not exactly showing "support" is it?
> 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"?
Out of interest, how are the unions trying to cut in? And what exactly are they "cutting in"?
So if union do stuff, they should be targeted by anti trust but if companies do it, nothing should happen?
My God, so many people have been taught to have themselves. It's just sad at this point.
My God, so many people have been taught to have themselves. It's just sad at this point.
> So if they let Tesla come in and not play by the rules
Tesla complies with the country's laws, no?
Tesla complies with the country's laws, no?
There are laws and there are norms. In Sweden, both are equally important and you'll get left out if you break either. It's sad in a lot of cases, as it removes some individuality, but it's how the country been operating for a long time.
Expecting to run a company against the norms in a culture that so heavily leans on norms is bound to create conflict, which is what we're seeing here.
Expecting to run a company against the norms in a culture that so heavily leans on norms is bound to create conflict, which is what we're seeing here.
Laws upheld by the state are the worst good way to maintain order.
A much better way is to have the parties play nice with each other, build trust, and negotiate as equals. This allows for much better and more detailed agreements, for quicker reactions if market conditions changes, and for more flexibility within each economic sector. The fact that the Nordic countries operate in such a way no doubt contributes to these countries both having great standards of living, and being among the best in the world to start and run businesses in.
Tesla doesn't play nice. They don't build trust, and they don't try to negotiate as equals.
True, it is not illegal. It doesn't need to be. We have other ways to keep hostile actors from misbehaving.
Strikes are one of those ways.
A much better way is to have the parties play nice with each other, build trust, and negotiate as equals. This allows for much better and more detailed agreements, for quicker reactions if market conditions changes, and for more flexibility within each economic sector. The fact that the Nordic countries operate in such a way no doubt contributes to these countries both having great standards of living, and being among the best in the world to start and run businesses in.
Tesla doesn't play nice. They don't build trust, and they don't try to negotiate as equals.
True, it is not illegal. It doesn't need to be. We have other ways to keep hostile actors from misbehaving.
Strikes are one of those ways.
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.
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.
The other companies and unions are also complying with the country's laws, and they're exercising their choice to not do business with a company that is choosing to operate in a way that contradicts the existing social structures.
And so do the unions.
The law takes a hands off approach to regulating the conditions of workers, but that goes both ways. If Tesla avoids signing a collective bargaining agreement, the law won’t help the unions force them to, but it also won’t protect Tesla from the unions.
What apparently a lot of commenters don’t know is that in Sweden a lot of things that in other countries are regulated by laws are regulate by agreements between the unions and corresponding organisations for the employers. This an order that both parties prefer, instead of legislations that none of them might be happy with.
It has been like this in Sweden since 1938 (if I remember correctly), and it is unlikely that any American company will be allowed to come in and change that order. I think the last one that tried and failed was Amazon, and before that Toys R Us.
It has been like this in Sweden since 1938 (if I remember correctly), and it is unlikely that any American company will be allowed to come in and change that order. I think the last one that tried and failed was Amazon, and before that Toys R Us.
This is one of the fundamental things about Sweden which is really quite weird when you come from the outside. Much of Swedish society runs on "recommendations" (or norms as someone else put it), so technically you don't have to abide by them (i.e. under the thread of the government monopoly on violence, how we enforce laws), but everyone just does it anyway.
This was an interesting experience for me during COVID, where lots of other countries put lots of rules/laws in place, while Sweden just had "recommendations" (and lax ones at that). The way I understood it, it would have been even incredibly difficult/legally impossible for the government to impose some of the same restrictions as in other countries.
It's actually fascinating how well the Swedish society functions without these laws.
This was an interesting experience for me during COVID, where lots of other countries put lots of rules/laws in place, while Sweden just had "recommendations" (and lax ones at that). The way I understood it, it would have been even incredibly difficult/legally impossible for the government to impose some of the same restrictions as in other countries.
It's actually fascinating how well the Swedish society functions without these laws.
They are.
Then again, so are the unions.
Tesla just chose the most expensive way possible to solve the matter. That's well within their rights, of course.
Then again, so are the unions.
Tesla just chose the most expensive way possible to solve the matter. That's well within their rights, of course.
> The workers in question are not in a union
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.
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.
Aggressive American union busting tactics don't go down well in Europe. This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened.
Walmart famously crashed and burned in Germany, for example, because they treated the German unions like uppity communists.
Walmart famously crashed and burned in Germany, for example, because they treated the German unions like uppity communists.
Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden. People want to be in unions. I want to be in my union. We feel good about them and employers (who respect our model) feel good about it too because it is cooperative.
For many reasons, the US has a model which is not cooperative but built on bitter enmity. This is repeated throughout the nation with e.g. cars vs bikes.
We do not have that here. This is Musk bringing all his prejudice to a bunch of countries he doesn't understand the norms and culture of.
For many reasons, the US has a model which is not cooperative but built on bitter enmity. This is repeated throughout the nation with e.g. cars vs bikes.
We do not have that here. This is Musk bringing all his prejudice to a bunch of countries he doesn't understand the norms and culture of.
>> don't go down well in Europe.
> Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden.
Unionization rates differ significantly across European countries. While the unionization rate in the Sweden is quite high at 65.2% (as of 2019), it is much lower in Germany at 16.3% and even lower in France at 8.9%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356735/labor-unions-mos...
> Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden.
Unionization rates differ significantly across European countries. While the unionization rate in the Sweden is quite high at 65.2% (as of 2019), it is much lower in Germany at 16.3% and even lower in France at 8.9%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356735/labor-unions-mos...
I was specifically speaking about the Nordic Model of which I am a member and a citizen. I could have been more clear but by "my" I meant as a citizen of a country participating in the Nordic Model. What the rest of Europe does is up to them. Unions are foundational to our (Scandinavia's) way of life. This fight ends with Tesla either agreeing to our model or losing our entire market.
There are enough other social norms that US companies can bloody their nose on in other European countries.
As for strikes in particular: France doesn't require a union vote to engage in a strike to do so with far-reaching protections (2 employees fighting for an employment-related change seem to suffice from my cursory reading), so the French can strike without needing to be unionized. And boy, do they strike...
As for strikes in particular: France doesn't require a union vote to engage in a strike to do so with far-reaching protections (2 employees fighting for an employment-related change seem to suffice from my cursory reading), so the French can strike without needing to be unionized. And boy, do they strike...
The French system is not at all like the Nordic system. It is much closer to the American system, only with stronger unions.
The Swedish almost never go on strikes, with very few exceptions.
The Swedish almost never go on strikes, with very few exceptions.
> Aggressive American union busting tactics don't go down well in Europe.
But... Tesla never even got that far. They just hired some people who apparently wanted the jobs? No one got fired or threatened, no bribes are alleged. It really seems like IF Metall fired first, no?
But... Tesla never even got that far. They just hired some people who apparently wanted the jobs? No one got fired or threatened, no bribes are alleged. It really seems like IF Metall fired first, no?
Tesla has refused to negotiate for over 5 years.
With who though? Not their workers. Can you cite coverage of the "union busting" activities you're talking about?
The union? I didn't respond on the busting part, just that Tesla refused to negotiate for 5 years.
But from what I read Tesla brought in workers from elsewhere, does that count as union busting?
There is nothing remotely like "union busting" alleged in that article (which is quite good, and largely supports my belief that this is an unreasonable escalation by Swedish labor; so much so that I maybe question if you actually read it?).
I linked to it because I thought you may not be familiar with this dispute.
I'm puzzled. Do you think when he flew in workers from other countries that this was not a strikebreaking tactic or are you saying that this did not happen?
I'm puzzled. Do you think when he flew in workers from other countries that this was not a strikebreaking tactic or are you saying that this did not happen?
Unreasonable may be in the eye of the beholder. It is however completely expected. If anything, they waited much longer than usual.
This is pretty much a school book example how labor conflicts go.
The next steps of the conflict are also expected and known well in advance. The only problem is that nobody seems to be willing to inform their higher ups at Tesla what is happening.
This is pretty much a school book example how labor conflicts go.
The next steps of the conflict are also expected and known well in advance. The only problem is that nobody seems to be willing to inform their higher ups at Tesla what is happening.
Tesla brought that unto themselves when they brought in scabs. That's the most egregious act against labour in the Nordics, from that moment they destroyed any chance to be seen as coming into negotiations on a equal footing. You don't do that here, period.
> but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption
What is the economic disruption? There's no "economic disruption" because of Tesla in Sweden, it's negligible for the overall Swedish economy, stop that...
Tesla fucked around, now it's finding out.
> but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption
What is the economic disruption? There's no "economic disruption" because of Tesla in Sweden, it's negligible for the overall Swedish economy, stop that...
Tesla fucked around, now it's finding out.
> A Swedish court said on Thursday that PostNord did not, for the time being, need to deliver licence plates to the electric carmaker that were being blocked by the postal service’s workers, in the latest twist in a battle over collective bargaining agreements.
How exactly is this done? Do they refuse to accept the license plates when the Swedish Transport Agency wants to drop them off? Or do they accept the plates, but refuse to deliver them? The former would be more or less ok, but the latter would amount to theft (taking the property of someone else and refusing to give it to them). I don't agree with Tesla's anti-union practices, just curious...
How exactly is this done? Do they refuse to accept the license plates when the Swedish Transport Agency wants to drop them off? Or do they accept the plates, but refuse to deliver them? The former would be more or less ok, but the latter would amount to theft (taking the property of someone else and refusing to give it to them). I don't agree with Tesla's anti-union practices, just curious...
The postal workers doesn’t care what it is that’s delivered to Tesla, nothing is delivered, but apparently Tesla is only upset about the license plates
So it’s all about the receiver, and it’s not the only reason one can have to refuse to deliver, in other cases safety and work environment has been cited.
I’m not sure what happens with the mail though, if it’s sent back to the sender or put in piles
So it’s all about the receiver, and it’s not the only reason one can have to refuse to deliver, in other cases safety and work environment has been cited.
I’m not sure what happens with the mail though, if it’s sent back to the sender or put in piles
It's not clear to me who owns the license plate. Maybe it's the state who is the owner. I know the old plate must be destroyed when a new plate is issued.
The latter. They dont deliever any mail.
They just don't deliver the license plates. Tesla can go and pick them off at the postal center themselves.
I imagine they're just thrown into the corner of a warehouse somewhere.
I imagine they're just thrown into the corner of a warehouse somewhere.
> Tesla can go and pick them off at the postal center themselves.
No. You cannot waltz into a postal center, say "oh, that there stuff is mine" and then leave with it.
No. You cannot waltz into a postal center, say "oh, that there stuff is mine" and then leave with it.
Tesla is shooting itself in the foot by not being pragmatic.
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are combined the 3rd biggest market for Tesla. During some months we even edge out China temporarily becoming Tesla's 2nd biggest market.
The way our unions are being portrayed by Americans is ridiculous. Even pro-union Americans are making our unions sound far more aggressive and subversive than they actually are. A "blockade" just means no unionized workers and truck drivers want to offload and transport your products and supplies. It doesn't mean a literal blockade.
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are combined the 3rd biggest market for Tesla. During some months we even edge out China temporarily becoming Tesla's 2nd biggest market.
The way our unions are being portrayed by Americans is ridiculous. Even pro-union Americans are making our unions sound far more aggressive and subversive than they actually are. A "blockade" just means no unionized workers and truck drivers want to offload and transport your products and supplies. It doesn't mean a literal blockade.
I think there’s just a cultural difference between Sweden and the US into how the postal service is viewed.
In the US, the postal service is the OG government service - the power of Congress to create post offices is explicitly called out in the Constitution when it was signed.
Further, the US postal service has a mandate to provide mail access to every residential address - even if’s some remote island in Alaska.
I think the idea that the government can just throw up its hands when faced with a private labor strike, and say “Nothing we can do” is just baffling to us in the US.
In the US, the postal service is the OG government service - the power of Congress to create post offices is explicitly called out in the Constitution when it was signed.
Further, the US postal service has a mandate to provide mail access to every residential address - even if’s some remote island in Alaska.
I think the idea that the government can just throw up its hands when faced with a private labor strike, and say “Nothing we can do” is just baffling to us in the US.
Frankly, that should be the norm.
If employees are being abused, let them ask for their rights.
If employees are being abused, let them ask for their rights.
It does seem penny wise and dollar foolish for Musk/Tesla to be playing these games.
Foolish? From the guy who spent 44 billion on Twitter to then run it into the ground? Noooo, it can't be, Musk is a business genius. /s obviously
> The way our unions are being portrayed by Americans is ridiculous.
Americans policymakers believe in freedom of association only when it suits them.
Its cool for Google or banks to close all your accounts without any reason, and make your life impossible.
Its wrong for all unions/workers to refuse to work with Google and make their business impossible.
Americans policymakers believe in freedom of association only when it suits them.
Its cool for Google or banks to close all your accounts without any reason, and make your life impossible.
Its wrong for all unions/workers to refuse to work with Google and make their business impossible.
This feels very disingenuous, and pretty unfair. I don’t think most Americans think it’s ok for google or banks to act that way, and I also feel very uncomfortable about a sort of “mob rule” system… where informal agreements dictate which businesses are allowed to operate.
They both feel weird for roughly the same reasons: arbitrary decisions instead of laws dictate which behavior is tolerated for which group of people. In both cases the rights of individuals seem like they’re subject to the whims of other groups of people, instead of “liberty and justice for all.”
They both feel weird for roughly the same reasons: arbitrary decisions instead of laws dictate which behavior is tolerated for which group of people. In both cases the rights of individuals seem like they’re subject to the whims of other groups of people, instead of “liberty and justice for all.”
> I don’t think most Americans think it’s ok for google or banks to act that way
Will Americans support laws to encode that Google or banks can't do that? I don't think so. You'd think it could be a bipartisan slam dunk, but, hey!
> where informal agreements dictate which businesses are allowed to operate.
They're not informal. They're part of Swedish law and the Swedish economic system. Tesla is attempting to act like a not-Swedish company in Sweden and is reaping what they've sown.
You say that "laws dictate"--sure, and the Swedish system delegates the particulars to the employer/union interaction much as, for example, the United States delegates to the regulatory regime. Unions can agree to pretty wide-ranging outcomes in Sweden. They, collectively, are refusing to do that.
Will Americans support laws to encode that Google or banks can't do that? I don't think so. You'd think it could be a bipartisan slam dunk, but, hey!
> where informal agreements dictate which businesses are allowed to operate.
They're not informal. They're part of Swedish law and the Swedish economic system. Tesla is attempting to act like a not-Swedish company in Sweden and is reaping what they've sown.
You say that "laws dictate"--sure, and the Swedish system delegates the particulars to the employer/union interaction much as, for example, the United States delegates to the regulatory regime. Unions can agree to pretty wide-ranging outcomes in Sweden. They, collectively, are refusing to do that.
> arbitrary decisions instead of laws
You're free to go to a court and fight against a strike organized by a union. If the court decides the strike is unlawful, the union will have to pay and stop striking.
Strikes and unions are not as arbitrary as it might seem.
You're free to go to a court and fight against a strike organized by a union. If the court decides the strike is unlawful, the union will have to pay and stop striking.
Strikes and unions are not as arbitrary as it might seem.
It's written in jest, it's more of an observation of what seems to be taking place rather than how individuals feel.
[deleted]
There are two lawsuits.
1. to force the government to allow Tesla to pick up license plates directly from them rather than using PostNord.
2. to force PostNord to deliver license plates.
Preliminary rulings are for Tesla on #1 and against Tesla on #2. That seems right to me.
1. to force the government to allow Tesla to pick up license plates directly from them rather than using PostNord.
2. to force PostNord to deliver license plates.
Preliminary rulings are for Tesla on #1 and against Tesla on #2. That seems right to me.
One can see multiple confident and very different explanations in these threads. They can't all be correct at the same time. But at least it's people trying to unwrap what's going on and there are good responses and back and forths et.
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.
Very true! And I also think a lot of people doesn’t understand how Sweden/Nordics differ from eg France and assumes unions all across Europe works the same.
The article does not explain the background. What relation does Tesla have to Swedish workers? Is there a Tesla Gigafactory in Sweden?
No, this is only about repair shops. Which makes it all more stupid from Tesla.
But sympathy strikes goes further and now affects superchargers, offices and even Swedish suppliers to the gigafactory.
Lucky for Musk that he picked a Finnish supplier for the Cybertruck steel…
Lucky for Musk that he picked a Finnish supplier for the Cybertruck steel…
A union in Finland was already asked to support by Swedish unions and they already agreed.
But only regarding stuff exported to Sweden.
Tesla in Finland already follows the agreements agreed by the unions and the employer representative in the so-called kolmikanta. Because it's the law. Sweden has more loose laws there.
Finland had a devastating and bloody civil war with whites and reds and a somewhat different history than Sweden regarding the labor market.
IIRC some Finnish union people have tried to export labor union concepts to say China but I've heard that labor activists are persecuted there.
But only regarding stuff exported to Sweden.
Tesla in Finland already follows the agreements agreed by the unions and the employer representative in the so-called kolmikanta. Because it's the law. Sweden has more loose laws there.
Finland had a devastating and bloody civil war with whites and reds and a somewhat different history than Sweden regarding the labor market.
IIRC some Finnish union people have tried to export labor union concepts to say China but I've heard that labor activists are persecuted there.
Yeah - and i bet you that small concession is going to be a huge loss for hydro. I'm sure elon eithier is spinning up his own cyber truck steel line or using a different supplier by the end of the year in spite.
> Lucky for Musk that he picked a Finnish supplier
https://efe.com/en/economy/2023-12-07/finnish-union-will-be-...
https://efe.com/en/economy/2023-12-07/finnish-union-will-be-...
Only related to transportation of Tesla cars to Sweden, to avoid Tesla trying to circumvent Swedish strikes
It's all murky because the reporting is done in a biased manner. Tesla has service centers and point of sales in Sweden. Sweden has no minimum wage because everything is driven by CBAs (they even lobbied to CBA supported unions from minimum wage rule of EU). About 130 mechanics from Tesla went on strike because Musk refused to sign a CBA. Tesla says 90% are working, unions say 50% are on strike. The other worker unions went on a sympathy strike in support of the mechanics. That includes dock workers for loading and unloading, postal workers for plates, and metal bashers.
This headline is out of context. From what I read, postal workers striking said that Tesla should not be allowed to collect plates themselves because it's a job of union workers. Tesla went to court and got an early judgement (that they can collect) while the case goes on. Don't really understand if they really went to courts to force postal workers to deliver and I think it's unlikely as the law is pretty clear.
The larger context is Gigafactory in Berlin. The workers in nordic region are trying to encourage them to form a union. This strike does not really hurt Tesla that much, but if there is a strike in berlin, they would not be able to manufacture any car for the region. This also explains tesla's stance. They cave here, and will have to cave in Berlin too.
The key player in this regard is IG Metall, the one most aggressively pushing workers to unionize on the entire continent.
What I said and more can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/d9317830-3b1d-4c03-9a8e-bb2073a84... Good context, but FT too reckons that tesla should accept the union and CBA, so take it as you will.
This headline is out of context. From what I read, postal workers striking said that Tesla should not be allowed to collect plates themselves because it's a job of union workers. Tesla went to court and got an early judgement (that they can collect) while the case goes on. Don't really understand if they really went to courts to force postal workers to deliver and I think it's unlikely as the law is pretty clear.
The larger context is Gigafactory in Berlin. The workers in nordic region are trying to encourage them to form a union. This strike does not really hurt Tesla that much, but if there is a strike in berlin, they would not be able to manufacture any car for the region. This also explains tesla's stance. They cave here, and will have to cave in Berlin too.
The key player in this regard is IG Metall, the one most aggressively pushing workers to unionize on the entire continent.
What I said and more can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/d9317830-3b1d-4c03-9a8e-bb2073a84... Good context, but FT too reckons that tesla should accept the union and CBA, so take it as you will.
Tesla is refusing to sign a collective bargaining agreement which is basically the norm in Sweden. This has been going on for a couple of weeks and garnered a lot of attention in Swedish media and social media. Sweden has a strong tradition of unionization which clashes with 'big American capitalism'. Swedish subreddits have lately had frequent posts with the comment sections filled with comments that more or less in unison are saying 'go get them, grabs popcorn' in support of the actions taken against Tesla.
The strike has been ongoing for a couple of weeks but in the result of Tesla refusing to negotiate despite five years of attempts from the union. So it’s actually ongoing for +5 year
Yes, the reason this escalated was they brought in strike breakers
Good point. Small but important distinction.
Exactly the same in the Danish subreddits. I'd assume the same in Norwegian and Finnish subs too. The feeling of camaraderie is nearly unanimous.
Unanimous support in the Norwegian subreddit as well.
I don't think Tesla's will be as popular in the future. They've greatly damaged their brand through these actions already.
I don't think Tesla's will be as popular in the future. They've greatly damaged their brand through these actions already.
Fuck these companies that think they can break the unions our former generations built for the purpose of being treated fair.
Americans don't get it. We Scandinavians are not built on a cultural foundation which circles around creating our own safety nets.
We are not lucky. We worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
Same thing goes for Wolt or Uber etc. They are not welcome here if they can't treat workers by their unions commitments.
Fuck the money and hail solidarity.
Americans don't get it. We Scandinavians are not built on a cultural foundation which circles around creating our own safety nets.
We are not lucky. We worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
Same thing goes for Wolt or Uber etc. They are not welcome here if they can't treat workers by their unions commitments.
Fuck the money and hail solidarity.
> We are not lucky. We worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
No, you are lucky, because your ancestors worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
No, you are lucky, because your ancestors worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
Both are true,
The country is not "lucky" because it happened upon a culture, it worked towards it.
The individual is lucky to be born bearing the fruits of that hard work. But that puts a duty on the individuals not to squander or destroy these hard won triumphs.
The country is not "lucky" because it happened upon a culture, it worked towards it.
The individual is lucky to be born bearing the fruits of that hard work. But that puts a duty on the individuals not to squander or destroy these hard won triumphs.
... and if we continue to work for it as well then we are both lucky as well as reaping the fruits of our own labor. But I’m sure you don’t know (or care) about that part.
> Americans don't get it. We Scandinavians are not built on a cultural foundation which circles around creating our own safety nets.
Worth noting that Sweden has a worse homelessness rate than the US, at 36/10k compared to 17.5/10k in the US[0]. Sweden's homelessness rate appears to be about on par with South Africa's.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_ho...
Worth noting that Sweden has a worse homelessness rate than the US, at 36/10k compared to 17.5/10k in the US[0]. Sweden's homelessness rate appears to be about on par with South Africa's.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_ho...
Can you tell me more about the safety net thing? As an American I actually don’t understand that point. Are you saying culturally your family wouldn’t feel obligated to be a safety net if another family member was struggling? And that the unions defacto provide that sort of guarantee?
Generally, you take part of a union as a member. This includes that the union will deal with some negotiations with employers, will help you with legal issues regarding work and will help you with financial aid if you are let go.
In Sweden we have no laws for minimum wages and many worker rights are instead regulated through union-employer agreements.
In Sweden we have no laws for minimum wages and many worker rights are instead regulated through union-employer agreements.
Family can be and is one safety net in Europe, but many people haven't one, or one that can help, or one that wants to help. Nordic countries have been very stable through history and developed a culture where the community goes much farther than family. This helps the society become more resilient in an environment where the climate was historically very harsh and unforgiving. Also it feels great to be able to trust the existing rules in place. You know what to expect, and you feel fine to follow them when you know they are enforced to others as well. You expect others to know and follow the rules as well.
I'm from Belgium and the same sentiment applies. The "safety net" here refers to protections encoded in both the law and how social and communal structures and services are designed to work. While you can always reach to your family (if you have one...), you probably don't have to or great deal of "bad things" need to happen for a prolonged period of time before you will need to consider this as an option.
Simply put, when it comes to your work environment, healthcare, housing, ability to put food on the table and access essential services like water, electricity, internet etc. - there are systems in place to reduce risk and "surprises", ensure your survival and equip you with the ability to tackle general "stuff of life". That's (in part) also why we pay very high taxes.
Simply put, when it comes to your work environment, healthcare, housing, ability to put food on the table and access essential services like water, electricity, internet etc. - there are systems in place to reduce risk and "surprises", ensure your survival and equip you with the ability to tackle general "stuff of life". That's (in part) also why we pay very high taxes.
In the US, wages, vacation, healthcare, pension plans and care for the elderly are private arrangements set up by everyone individually (technically). The Nordic model is a collective arrangement, where safety nets are provided by the government, benefits are governed by law and compensation is governed by collective agreements between unions and employers.
Most families would provide for their own if it was required, but it's not a scenario most people ever need to consider, even as a backup, as bad luck alone can't put you in that situation, you'd need to actively seek it out.
Most families would provide for their own if it was required, but it's not a scenario most people ever need to consider, even as a backup, as bad luck alone can't put you in that situation, you'd need to actively seek it out.
No, I guess it means that Europeans think that there is a minimum level of welfare that must be guaranteed to everyone, and that minimum level is way above what is granted in the US. This doesn't mean that family members won't also contribute to that "safety net", just that there is a relatively high "acceptable minimum" and the state is expected to make sure that nobody falls below that.
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.
My name is Walter Hartwell White and I don’t understand these words either.
Yeah... As an American, i don't get it. Why is the Swedish union forcing the workers at Tesla to sign an arb agreement when they get paid much more than the average union worker in the country?
Does strong union actually result in better pay? If you compare the average software salary from the US to Sweden, it seems like it's doing the opposite, no?
Does strong union actually result in better pay? If you compare the average software salary from the US to Sweden, it seems like it's doing the opposite, no?
> Does strong union actually result in better pay?
I could make double my salary if I accepted offers from US companies, but I've chosen to live in Europe instead.
Money is a mean to something, ultimately. I actually believe that the labor protections and social safety net provided in European countries typically makes for a healthier society.
I could make double my salary if I accepted offers from US companies, but I've chosen to live in Europe instead.
Money is a mean to something, ultimately. I actually believe that the labor protections and social safety net provided in European countries typically makes for a healthier society.
There's other things just as important as salary.
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/teslamedarbetare-ingen-har-koll-pa...
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/teslamedarbetare-ingen-har-koll-pa...
This is certainly not about pay, as no one has suggested Tesla pays worse than anyone else. It is about upholding a free labor market by contract law.
If you don't want to negotiate that contract, the majority of the market will come together and refuse doing business with you until you do.
If you don't want to negotiate that contract, the majority of the market will come together and refuse doing business with you until you do.
>It is about upholding a free labor market by contract law
The unions negotiate for "All workers" under some kind of umbrella terms that has only sometimes specific prescriptions towards individual companies but always towards industries as a whole. They can dictate things like medical, vision, dental, sometimes day care. But they can also dictate things like work hours, safety, etc.
That all sounds gravy, but what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law, so they can't. But what if that's just how the people in the company, and people within that company want to work. That's how Tesla works. When you are getting of job at Tesla, you know exactly that you are signing up for long work hours. It's a company with everyone putting in 70 hour weeks for around 2 years, and springboard into another startup at a higher role, or more cushy FANG.
To give another example from another industry that would not work is the oil fields. We have the OCAW union here in the US but get like 1/4 of what the non-union jobs get. Because OCAW dictates work hours, and a salary but not time to rig. the non-unionized guys go out and work for 18 hours straight, sleep on a the rig for a bit, and get back to work. Again, not allowed under union contract, but if you do that for a couple days and make a bunch of money. Because we have worker pay, OSHA, etc. There is no need for unions here because the minimum labor standards for overtime pay and safety are set by federal standards not the "Union".
"Collective Bargaining" has lost it's sense of "Collective" at the scale it has grown. True collective bargaining has always been by the individuals themselves. Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions that they need to implement to be compliant is legalease non-sense.
The unions negotiate for "All workers" under some kind of umbrella terms that has only sometimes specific prescriptions towards individual companies but always towards industries as a whole. They can dictate things like medical, vision, dental, sometimes day care. But they can also dictate things like work hours, safety, etc.
That all sounds gravy, but what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law, so they can't. But what if that's just how the people in the company, and people within that company want to work. That's how Tesla works. When you are getting of job at Tesla, you know exactly that you are signing up for long work hours. It's a company with everyone putting in 70 hour weeks for around 2 years, and springboard into another startup at a higher role, or more cushy FANG.
To give another example from another industry that would not work is the oil fields. We have the OCAW union here in the US but get like 1/4 of what the non-union jobs get. Because OCAW dictates work hours, and a salary but not time to rig. the non-unionized guys go out and work for 18 hours straight, sleep on a the rig for a bit, and get back to work. Again, not allowed under union contract, but if you do that for a couple days and make a bunch of money. Because we have worker pay, OSHA, etc. There is no need for unions here because the minimum labor standards for overtime pay and safety are set by federal standards not the "Union".
"Collective Bargaining" has lost it's sense of "Collective" at the scale it has grown. True collective bargaining has always been by the individuals themselves. Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions that they need to implement to be compliant is legalease non-sense.
> what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law,
Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.
If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.
Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.
> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions
Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.
You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.
There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.
The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.
But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.
Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.
If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.
Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.
> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions
Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.
You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.
There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.
The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.
But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.
You live on the other side of a world ocean (at least). Not everything has to make sense to you or be expressed in Silicon Valley terms.
Try to make an effort yourself.
Try to make an effort yourself.
It's not all about pay. This is a very US view, unions can negotiate on a lot more aspects of work.
> Musk said last week: “I disagree with the idea of unions. I just don’t like anything which creates a lords-and-peasants kind of thing.”
This sounds ridiculous.
This sounds ridiculous.
Of course it's ridiculous. Unions have historically been key to helping equalize the power between employers and employees. Musk knows this and it's clear that he thinks of people working for his companies as peasants that only deserve what he's willing to dole out.
I think he meant he doesn't like when the peasants rise up against the lords.
My wife owns a company, it boggles my mind how the employees underestimate their strength.
They work for fractions and they are necessary for the company.
If a worker knows an owner is desperate, the worker can win. The opposite is true too.
They work for fractions and they are necessary for the company.
If a worker knows an owner is desperate, the worker can win. The opposite is true too.
An individual has families to feed and mortgages to pay
port515(1)
> “I disagree with the idea of unions. I just don’t like anything which creates a lords-and-peasants kind of thing.”
Says the oligarch to the masses.
That word is often used in only a post-Soviet context, but the word is Greek and far older than the Soviet Union, and the Wikipedia page has a pretty clear definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy and whilst the word triggers near-allergic reactions from Americans it does seem to reflect the power control in the US recently.
Says the oligarch to the masses.
That word is often used in only a post-Soviet context, but the word is Greek and far older than the Soviet Union, and the Wikipedia page has a pretty clear definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy and whilst the word triggers near-allergic reactions from Americans it does seem to reflect the power control in the US recently.
He " do[es]n’t like anything which creates a lords-and-peasants kind of thing", except the system that made him a lord.
A lot of what Musk says and does sounds ridiculous. That doesn't make it wise to dismiss out of hand.
I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality that might be necessary in local disputes but certainly isn't as good as having everyone's incentives aligned. What I think Musk might be missing in this context is that European unions have a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.
I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality that might be necessary in local disputes but certainly isn't as good as having everyone's incentives aligned. What I think Musk might be missing in this context is that European unions have a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.
Unions in Sweden works closely with the industry to find good deals that makes both companies and workers prosper.
Unions here know that if the companies doesn’t prosper, so won’t the people employed by it.
So the industry and the unions negotiate agreements that ensures we have the strongest companies with the healthiest workers.
Sure, one side represents the company leadership and the other the workers, but they have a shared goal and collaborate on that, knowing that government legislation would be worse for everyone and not be agile and adaptable to the needs of different industries.
Unions here know that if the companies doesn’t prosper, so won’t the people employed by it.
So the industry and the unions negotiate agreements that ensures we have the strongest companies with the healthiest workers.
Sure, one side represents the company leadership and the other the workers, but they have a shared goal and collaborate on that, knowing that government legislation would be worse for everyone and not be agile and adaptable to the needs of different industries.
> I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality
In America, yes. Painting Scandinavian unions as fomenting an us-vs-them mentality is more misunderstanding from people who don't understand what it's like to live and work here.
In America, yes. Painting Scandinavian unions as fomenting an us-vs-them mentality is more misunderstanding from people who don't understand what it's like to live and work here.
Any unions on a European level are loosely connected support groups. Nothing else.
Nordic unions are fundamentally different from for example the French, which are more like the American. Both organize workers, but from completely different perspectives and completely different roles in their respective economic systems.
None of them have much to do with the guild systems of old. Some countries still have the guild systems intact.
Nordic unions are fundamentally different from for example the French, which are more like the American. Both organize workers, but from completely different perspectives and completely different roles in their respective economic systems.
None of them have much to do with the guild systems of old. Some countries still have the guild systems intact.
> disseminating best practices and standards
What is a good example?
What is a good example?
Historically, artisans such as jewellery makers, butchers, etc. were part of a guild, which also provided training and apprenticeships.
> Historically, artisans such as jewellery makers, butchers,
the claim was that unions, today, disseminate best practices that make up for lack of companies training their employees to be able to do their jobs well, which I'm skeptical about.
the claim was that unions, today, disseminate best practices that make up for lack of companies training their employees to be able to do their jobs well, which I'm skeptical about.
I'm in a far away eu country. I am surprised at the amount of support for the unions there is on this.
From all sides.
Don't forget- a country may have a rw .gov - that doesn't necessarily equate to the majority supporting them, or their pov's.
We'd mostly just like a decent wage.
I actually viscerally dislike unions, due to my two experiences of having to work with them. But I know they can be good from my mother's testimony of her own union, and it's her historical take on how unions first formed that I shared above.
Ultimately, I think a qualified support of unions in principle is going to bring pro-union folks towards the center much more effectively than a denouncement.
Ultimately, I think a qualified support of unions in principle is going to bring pro-union folks towards the center much more effectively than a denouncement.
>a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.
This is the first time I've seen someone mention this as a good thing.
Most of the time its mentioned in outdated regulations dragging out the economic output of Europe in favor of old people who don't want to use new technology. I think everyone who has worked in physical product company has heard a story about how European unions are slow and expensive which is why XYZ is done somewhere else.
I actually like unions, I just found it silly to think that the guild system and the laws that resulted from union's corrupting the government are good things.
This is the first time I've seen someone mention this as a good thing.
Most of the time its mentioned in outdated regulations dragging out the economic output of Europe in favor of old people who don't want to use new technology. I think everyone who has worked in physical product company has heard a story about how European unions are slow and expensive which is why XYZ is done somewhere else.
I actually like unions, I just found it silly to think that the guild system and the laws that resulted from union's corrupting the government are good things.
The German industry inherits parts of the guild system too, even more than in Sweden. It's not all bad.
… I’m not even sure what he’s getting at. Are multinational corporations the exploited proletariat in this analogy?
It creates two castes in the company, management and unionized workers. Aristocrats and the peasant workers.
Without unions you already have the management and worker castes. Source: I've worked in non-union jobs for 20+ years.
What unions do is provide an opportunity for the workers to collectively apply power.
Of course, there's a lot of nuance in the implementations, and of course people can be corrupt as hell.
But in no way, shape, or form did unions create the management/worker caste split. Holy hell that requires some twisted logic.
What unions do is provide an opportunity for the workers to collectively apply power.
Of course, there's a lot of nuance in the implementations, and of course people can be corrupt as hell.
But in no way, shape, or form did unions create the management/worker caste split. Holy hell that requires some twisted logic.
I'm just presenting the argument, which can be made. Reasonable people will disagree.
In my particular experience, I always hated working unionized jobs I had and much preferred being a free actor with minimal fuss. I don't feel like "management versus workers" is a real divide in most non-union jobs I had (in which case you could say that systematizing the difference materializes the difference). But I also think it would likely be very different in different companies and industries. Unions aren't for me and I think they've had their use in the past, and I'm ambivalent as to their necessity in modern times (since governments now enforce a good set of minimums).
In my particular experience, I always hated working unionized jobs I had and much preferred being a free actor with minimal fuss. I don't feel like "management versus workers" is a real divide in most non-union jobs I had (in which case you could say that systematizing the difference materializes the difference). But I also think it would likely be very different in different companies and industries. Unions aren't for me and I think they've had their use in the past, and I'm ambivalent as to their necessity in modern times (since governments now enforce a good set of minimums).
In contrast to a non-union shop, where there's... management and ununionized workers? With every individual worker in their own powerless little caste of one?
Not really, unions provides the workers with representatives in the management which essentially bridges management and workers and lessens the divide
[deleted]
He probably said quite a bit more than just that. If you extract just one sentence from somebody's position, you can make anyone look ridiculous.
Looking at this from a distance and without picking sides, I can see both sides have a point and a bigger agenda. The actual conflict seems like it is a sideshow to this bigger agenda.
In Scandinavia the unions are historically very strong. Strong as in they are mostly socialist leaning countries where the socialists have set policies for decades backed by very strong unions that dictate how companies operate. Not just Tesla, all companies. The message is fall in line, or else we'll cripple your company. And it's a message not just to Tesla but to all companies.
One little problem though, Sweden doesn't actually have a socialist government currently. Neither does Denmark. And Norway has a minority socialist government coalition. So, socialists are fresh out of power all over Scandinavia and struggling a bit. Also as Tesla workers aren't unionized. These unions aren't representing those workers directly. This is part of their grudge. So, unions feel a need to assert themselves and reclaim some power. And they are using Tesla to do it. Perfect company for fanning the outrage a little and Elon Musk is always happy to offend anyone with incendiary statements. But you have to see it for what this is: political posturing by the unions.
With Tesla the agenda is that they are a multinational and they are investing billions world wide in creating giga-factories and lots of employment and they are looking to get the best deals for this. Governments are lobbying them heavily for being the next giga factory site. So, what's the signal Elon Musk is giving off with to those governments by doing this in Sweden? Get the unions of my back if you want my money. So, he's happy to let this escalate a little. It works wonders elsewhere. The big picture for him is getting favorable conditions to build his next giga factory elsewhere in Europe. The Swedish are just pawns in that game. My guess is he'll ultimately fold in some way to keep the Scandinavian market going. But forget about a Swedish giga-factory happening.
Looking at this from a distance and without picking sides, I can see both sides have a point and a bigger agenda. The actual conflict seems like it is a sideshow to this bigger agenda.
In Scandinavia the unions are historically very strong. Strong as in they are mostly socialist leaning countries where the socialists have set policies for decades backed by very strong unions that dictate how companies operate. Not just Tesla, all companies. The message is fall in line, or else we'll cripple your company. And it's a message not just to Tesla but to all companies.
One little problem though, Sweden doesn't actually have a socialist government currently. Neither does Denmark. And Norway has a minority socialist government coalition. So, socialists are fresh out of power all over Scandinavia and struggling a bit. Also as Tesla workers aren't unionized. These unions aren't representing those workers directly. This is part of their grudge. So, unions feel a need to assert themselves and reclaim some power. And they are using Tesla to do it. Perfect company for fanning the outrage a little and Elon Musk is always happy to offend anyone with incendiary statements. But you have to see it for what this is: political posturing by the unions.
With Tesla the agenda is that they are a multinational and they are investing billions world wide in creating giga-factories and lots of employment and they are looking to get the best deals for this. Governments are lobbying them heavily for being the next giga factory site. So, what's the signal Elon Musk is giving off with to those governments by doing this in Sweden? Get the unions of my back if you want my money. So, he's happy to let this escalate a little. It works wonders elsewhere. The big picture for him is getting favorable conditions to build his next giga factory elsewhere in Europe. The Swedish are just pawns in that game. My guess is he'll ultimately fold in some way to keep the Scandinavian market going. But forget about a Swedish giga-factory happening.
Unions getting the best deal for their workers is "political posturing"?
> Also as Tesla workers aren't unionized. These unions aren't representing those workers directly.
The striking Tesla employees are union members (IF Metall).
The striking Tesla employees are union members (IF Metall).
> One little problem though, Sweden doesn't actually have a socialist government currently. Neither does Denmark. And Norway has a minority socialist government coalition. So, socialists are fresh out of power all over Scandinavia and struggling a bit.
The Danish prime minister is from the social democrat party.
The Danish prime minister is from the social democrat party.
It's a coalition government. The Foreign Minister is from a freshly minted party that he basically owns -- which he created after losing a power struggle back when he was head of the party Venstre. The third party in the coalition is Venstre.
> He probably said quite a bit more than just that.
Yes, this is also the conversation where he said "Go fuck yourself. Go. Fuck. Yourself."
Yes, this is also the conversation where he said "Go fuck yourself. Go. Fuck. Yourself."
I think you underestimate how much the employer's unions want contract law to be respected.
As for the socialist conspiracy theories, they mostly feel out of favor in the 1990s.
As for the socialist conspiracy theories, they mostly feel out of favor in the 1990s.
> "The district court has decided that PostNord should not be forced make deliveries to Tesla before the case is closed," the Solna district court said in a statement.
Just another interim decision, apparently.
Just another interim decision, apparently.
Is PostNord like the post office or like fedex? If the former, that seems crazy to me. Imagine the post office just refused to deliver your electricity bill despite the electric company paying for a stamp. If it's the latter it makes a lot more sense.
Both, unlike in the US the Swedish post office is privatized and handled by multiple companies, eg Citymail also offers postal services.
PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use.
PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services.
But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important
PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use.
PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services.
But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important
I am surprised that in this case Swedes value individual rights over their duty to the public.
Tesla is not the public.
Are companies excluded from your idea of the public or just Tesla? I'm genuinely curious. I couldn't care less about Tesla in this case, I am just trying to understand how people are okay with civil servants picking and choosing who they render services to.
That isn’t what’s happening here, it’s unions striking. Employees can’t just do this randomly, it has to be part of an organised strike which is fairly rare. Once the strikes in place the private employees (not civil servants) who belong to unions will follow recommendations of actions.
They are not civil servants. They are employees of PostNord, which is a company owned by the government but the employees have the same rights as any other employee: to organise themselves. They've organised on a sympathy strike against Tesla, to boycott doing their work that would have Tesla as a customer in sympathy with IF Metall's strike.
All of that is completely legal and acceptable. Employees of a company (PostNord) are joining together with employees from another company to fight against a company trying to avoid the rules on how the labour market works here.
There's no "civil servant" in play. Everyone is a worker.
Accept that it's a different culture, maybe not better or worse than yours but different. Here the labour market is a free market, the government doesn't regulate much, and it's up to negotiations directly between the participants of the market: employers and employees. For that a lot of companies agree under a Collective Bargaining Agreement the minimum bar expected for employers to respect when contracting employees. These CBAs complement the bare minimum legislation around the labour market from government, they are a cornerstone of almost all labour relationship instead of heavy government regulations.
Those are the rules of the game, Tesla is trying to break them, and worse, they brought scabs to break through the strike, which is really not tolerated in this culture. Because of that they have the sympathy of workers from other industries that Tesla relies on, since Tesla is trying to break the social contract of the labour market, other workers feel that is infringing on their own rights since it will create a precedent for other companies to also ignore the rules of the game.
This is what is in play, I hope you understand it's not your culture, it's ok to be ignorant about it but I expect smart people to also be able to learn a different perspective instead of keeping spouting their ignorance.
All of that is completely legal and acceptable. Employees of a company (PostNord) are joining together with employees from another company to fight against a company trying to avoid the rules on how the labour market works here.
There's no "civil servant" in play. Everyone is a worker.
Accept that it's a different culture, maybe not better or worse than yours but different. Here the labour market is a free market, the government doesn't regulate much, and it's up to negotiations directly between the participants of the market: employers and employees. For that a lot of companies agree under a Collective Bargaining Agreement the minimum bar expected for employers to respect when contracting employees. These CBAs complement the bare minimum legislation around the labour market from government, they are a cornerstone of almost all labour relationship instead of heavy government regulations.
Those are the rules of the game, Tesla is trying to break them, and worse, they brought scabs to break through the strike, which is really not tolerated in this culture. Because of that they have the sympathy of workers from other industries that Tesla relies on, since Tesla is trying to break the social contract of the labour market, other workers feel that is infringing on their own rights since it will create a precedent for other companies to also ignore the rules of the game.
This is what is in play, I hope you understand it's not your culture, it's ok to be ignorant about it but I expect smart people to also be able to learn a different perspective instead of keeping spouting their ignorance.
Their "duty to the public" being to deliver license plates to Tesla? Really?
Their duty is to deliver mail is it not? Should mail carriers refuse to deliver political flyers because they disagree with the message??
It's not just random postal workers doing it though, it's union members doing it as part of a sympathy strike. And surely every workers "duty" is their job, so then no striking should be allowed? Or should only complete strikes be allowed?
Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.
Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.
They are not refusing based on content, they are refusing based on recipient – two very different things.
It just so happens that license plates are one of the things that gets blocked. Not because they are license plates but because Tesla is the receiver.
It just so happens that license plates are one of the things that gets blocked. Not because they are license plates but because Tesla is the receiver.
Political flyers seem like something very different to license plates. The court might decide differently under different circumstances.
Has there been a strike against a political party in Nordic union history?
Collective rights against an individual company*
Sweden protects the rights of workers
Sweden protects the rights of workers
They are the national postal service, successor to the old Posten AB (which just means “The Post, Ltd”), and before that Postverket (“The Post Agency”).
There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).
There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).
What I find strange is that when a subset of employees strike, PostNord doesn't feel obligated to deliver at all, even though they have employees that are not part of the union and are not covered by the strike. This while PostNord has legal obligations to deliver mail.
Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal.
I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.
Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal.
I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.
Striking is a constitutionally protected right in Sweden. The belief of PostNord is that the right of their employees to strike weighs higher than PostNord's obligation to deliver mail.
Not that simple. RF states striking as a protected right for an association of employees. It is not an individually protected right.
"Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "
"Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "
> Not that simple.
It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same:
> "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1]
1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...
It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same:
> "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1]
1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...
Which is what it is in this case, a union which strikes
You seem to be advocating that PostNord bring in strike breakers to do the jobs of the people at strike?
That would be an insane way to escalate the conflict to a level which would bring down the entire force of all the unions combined. They are a huge employer and to even bring up the idea would be regarded infinitely more serious than whatever tiny Tesla is doing.
This is a conflict that PostNord has zero desire to be part of. Their employees are on a perfectly legal strike, they will handle this by the book. All their contracts with their customers already stipulates exactly what can be expected in a force majeure situation such as this, and their union is careful not to disrupt their business more than necessary as that is in their best interest.
That would be an insane way to escalate the conflict to a level which would bring down the entire force of all the unions combined. They are a huge employer and to even bring up the idea would be regarded infinitely more serious than whatever tiny Tesla is doing.
This is a conflict that PostNord has zero desire to be part of. Their employees are on a perfectly legal strike, they will handle this by the book. All their contracts with their customers already stipulates exactly what can be expected in a force majeure situation such as this, and their union is careful not to disrupt their business more than necessary as that is in their best interest.
Question on Swedish law: Can PostNord even know who is a union member and who is not? Are only union members allowed to strike?
Anyone can strike. Being part of the union and contributing to it guarantee you are being paid (by the union) while on strike.
On the second question - my understanding is that non-union associated employees do not have a protected right to strike, as individual employeees. You can't just refuse work and say "I strike!" At least their rights are weaker. Much of Swedish labor laws are about associations of employees (=unions) and associations of employers. As an individual, your rights are not the same. We will see what the courts say in the end but this distinction is not so well known, and it often comes as a surprise for non-unionized members when a company is downsizing.
It's the other way around. Unionized workers have traded away their right to strike without union support.
Anyone can strike, it is a basic right, but good luck not getting paid. That salary might have been handy for the legal representation after being fired too.
Anyone can strike, it is a basic right, but good luck not getting paid. That salary might have been handy for the legal representation after being fired too.
I'm curious as to whether an "association" legally implies those who have membership in a union, or more generally covers coordinated action between union members and non-members, or even coordinated action between non-members alone.
No PostNord doesn't know and cannot ask.
> There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).
Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.
Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.
No, as most USPS employees are considered "quasi-federal" employees and US law prohibits any federal employees from striking. They can protest and have some of the usual Union protections but striking can lead to them being fired, fined, or imprisoned.
As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).
As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).
The USPS has a "universal service obligation", so no. The US postal strike of 1970 (which I hadn't heard of before) was apparently illegal, but when a huge number of people perform an illegal act it's often not in the government interest to fire them, but to instead negotiate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of...
: President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of...
: President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]
It's the people who are on strike, not the company. Are people where you live not allowed to go on strike?
So you are okay with, say, the individuals of a fire department deciding not to put out a fire because they don't like someone? This is a public service we are talking about here.
Arbitrary discrimination can’t be compared to organized union strikes?
Why is one arbitrary and the other not? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
Because it is based on pre-stated principles, which the other party is capable of fulfilling. This makes it non-arbitrary.
I don't understand how my statement of firemen refusing to put out a fire because they didn't like the person is arbitrary. If they publicly stated they do not like the person because of their politics and will refuse to put out fires for anyone supporting that party does that make it okay to not put out a fire on their house?
Not liking someone is arbitrary and subjective
Swedish unions are not subjecting Tesla to strikes because they dislike Tesla or Musk, they are doing it to ensure they sign a collective bargain
Swedish unions are not subjecting Tesla to strikes because they dislike Tesla or Musk, they are doing it to ensure they sign a collective bargain
It doesn't make it okay, but yes, it does make it non-arbitrary. But what VoxPelli wrote regarding your original statement.
And important to note as well: Swedish firefighters are not refusing to put out fires at Tesla workshops
Because it relates to a labor dispute?
Should individuals be forced to perform their duties against their wills?
If you are rendering a public service, absolutely. Unless doctors can just start letting patients die on their tables because they don't like their patient's politics.
What's wrong with a doctor refusing to treat a patient they don't like?
If you got in a car accident, you're okay with the ambulance just driving off because they don't like your bumper stickers?
Imagine a country where there is a law against private companies delivering mail to your mailbox?
Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No?
Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No?
Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
[deleted]
Refusing to deliver to Tesla is one thing, but when you get to the point of refusing to surrender their property when their representatives show up at the location where it is stored, that's just plain theft.
I imagine the post office told them something along the lines of:
'Go fuck yourself'
'Go fuck yourself'
> I disagree with the idea of unions. I just don’t like anything which creates a lords-and-peasants kind of thing
So, Elon Musk has zero self-awareness. Good to know.
So, Elon Musk has zero self-awareness. Good to know.
Maybe he meant he doesn't like anything which reveals or counteracts the lords-and-peasants thing that exists and from which he personally benefits.
Agreed - his comment makes complete sense if you s/creates a/pierces the veil of/
US companies must be scared as hell about what would happen if we had strong sectoral bargaining and permitted sympathy strikes like Nordic countries.
US companies must be scared as hell about what would happen if we had strong sectoral bargaining and permitted sympathy strikes like Nordic countries.
"If your mighty hand wills it so the wheels of commerce cease to turn".
I forgot where that came from but it is a very powerful reminder who ultimately has power and that only in numbers that power can be effectively wielded.
I forgot where that came from but it is a very powerful reminder who ultimately has power and that only in numbers that power can be effectively wielded.
does this mean sweeden is going to import chinese EVs??
Well, as it happens Polestar is doing well as a JV between Volvo and Geely. HQ is in Sweden, cars are produced in China. I see a few around me here in the UK now.
Some of the EVs are produced in the states now (South Carolina?). I'm not sure if any of the EVs are actually produced in Sweden, at least I can't find anything on the internet.
We are quite capable of producing our own vehicles and batteries
Volvo Cars, Polestar, Volvo AB, Scania, Koenigsegg, Northvolt and also new ones like Emily GT, Candella, Einride etc Even our own fighter jets, submarines and military ships through Saab.
Volvo Cars, Polestar, Volvo AB, Scania, Koenigsegg, Northvolt and also new ones like Emily GT, Candella, Einride etc Even our own fighter jets, submarines and military ships through Saab.
With the kind of humor that Elon Musk has he should love the Swedish unions, as the Swedish name for union is “fack”, which is pronounced “fuck”
Sounds like something he would like, in addition to his S,3,X,Y range of cars
Sounds like something he would like, in addition to his S,3,X,Y range of cars
So, the Swedish word for union is fackförening, where fack is pronounced exactly as English fuck. There’s a story that Stig Malm, at the time the head of the biggest Swedish union, LO, went to Brussels and orated lengthily about the Swedish fack unions.
Fack around and find out?
Tesla is playing this as dumb and tone-deaf as they possibly could.
Tesla is playing this as dumb and tone-deaf as they possibly could.
Yet another example on why the Nordics are always rated at the top of the best Countries to live in.
If only people in the US weren't cowards when it comes to Businesses, things would be much better.
If only people in the US weren't cowards when it comes to Businesses, things would be much better.
Tesla should leave the market and let Swedes buy automobiles from their own brands... like... err... Saab which no longer exists... or Volvo, which now belongs to a Chinese conglomerate...
Tesla isn't the only car maker in existence. Hell, they're not even the only EV maker anymore these days and most car manufacturers aren't trying to brute force their way with how employee/employer relations are managed in a country they're not homed in.
I don't think Tesla ending up exiting the Swedish market is the owngoal you think it is for Sweden.
I don't think Tesla ending up exiting the Swedish market is the owngoal you think it is for Sweden.
Or, they could research the business climate and laws in a country before establishing a presence. Then feel free to buck established practice, but at least know the potential consequences.
Sure, in that case maybe Tesla would never have entered Sweden, but what good is that? It's bad for Sweden, Tesla, and the environment.
Discovering this Swedish 'quirk' then vs. now wouldn't make Tesla any more likely to roll over to extralegal bullying tactics.
Discovering this Swedish 'quirk' then vs. now wouldn't make Tesla any more likely to roll over to extralegal bullying tactics.
Tesla is free to not sign a CBA, and union members are free to not serve Tesla. Swedish labor market is very free (as in unencumbered by laws and government intervention).
they aren't extralegal. the strike actions are protected by law. they are exercising their legal right every bit as much as tesla is by suing (and losing).
> Sure, in that case maybe Tesla would never have entered Sweden, but what good is that? It's bad for Sweden, Tesla, and the environment.
How exactly would it be "bad for Sweden" if Tesla never had entered? Tesla is just another large company. Why would it bad for Sweden if Tesla didn't enter their market because Tesla didn't want to comport itself according to Swedish laws and customs?
How exactly would it be "bad for Sweden" if Tesla never had entered? Tesla is just another large company. Why would it bad for Sweden if Tesla didn't enter their market because Tesla didn't want to comport itself according to Swedish laws and customs?
What is extralegal currently?
Extralegal?
The right to strike is enshrined in the Swedish constitution of all things.
The right to strike is enshrined in the Swedish constitution of all things.
Polestars are pretty nice!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polestar_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polestar_3
That car starts at ~$90k. So maybe it's nice to have, but most people can't.
The Volvo EX30 will apparently be competitively priced and manufactured in Belgium for the European market eventually
And that's why EVs s*ck for most of the normal people here in Europe.
If Tesla leave Sweden, we will still have many many brands to pick from. Here in Sweden we can buy cars from other companies.
A Tesla car is pretty much off the shopping list for me, due to Elon's behavior
Volvo Cars is a company incorporated in Sweden and is traded on the Stockholm stock exchange. It does have a Chinese majority owner, but also large Swedish institutional investors and have to abide by Swedish corporate regulation and the regulations of the Stockholm stock exchange, so unfortunately it’s more complex than what you want it to be.
Polestar is in turn majority owned by Volvo Cars but also traded on the New York Stock Exchange, having to abide by rules there
Also, remember that time when Elon Musk claimed he would make Tesla private in cooperation with Saudi Arabia?
Also speaking of Saab: The Emily GT is set to start production in the old Saab factory soon, if/when that happens it looks like a solid Tesla Model S competitor.
Lastly: Remember the Tesla Semitruck? Well, Volvo and Scania is performing a bit better there… And Northvolt is supplying them batteries, and the Swedish carbon free steel will soon provide them great raw materials…
Polestar is in turn majority owned by Volvo Cars but also traded on the New York Stock Exchange, having to abide by rules there
Also, remember that time when Elon Musk claimed he would make Tesla private in cooperation with Saudi Arabia?
Also speaking of Saab: The Emily GT is set to start production in the old Saab factory soon, if/when that happens it looks like a solid Tesla Model S competitor.
Lastly: Remember the Tesla Semitruck? Well, Volvo and Scania is performing a bit better there… And Northvolt is supplying them batteries, and the Swedish carbon free steel will soon provide them great raw materials…
Eh, plenty of decent cars from other brands (most better than Tesla).
None of the other brands have issues to operate in Sweden.
I think the Swedish will be fine.
None of the other brands have issues to operate in Sweden.
I think the Swedish will be fine.
Spotify also had a breakdown with unions and its workforce. With no where near the fall out that Tesla is getting. Surely that is a bigger deal than Tesla service centres!?
Anti Elon, anti American sentiment?
Anti Elon, anti American sentiment?
> Anti Elon, anti American sentiment?
I don't think so. It's a cultural thing: Sweden, and the Nordic countries more generally, have a strong cultural heritage of unions representing the interests of workers. There are elements of protection not included in law - for example minimum wage - that are instead covered by union protection.
Tesla has taken a position that it will not sign up to collective bargaining globally - and so won't engage with the unions on it. That creates a fissure: a difference in policy.
So it's not anti-American. It's a refusal to accept the terms on which a corporation wants to engage. A similar situation happened with Klarna and Spotify as others have pointed out.
It might verge on anti-Musk, but only because this kind of thing is in "red rag to a bull" territory for him. He is utterly recalcitrant generally: backing down isn't in his nature. It would seem that has only stiffened the resolve of the Nordic workers and unions.
But even then it's equally valid to see Musk as "Anti-Sweden": unwilling to respect cultural norms in a country he wants his company to operate in.
I don't think so. It's a cultural thing: Sweden, and the Nordic countries more generally, have a strong cultural heritage of unions representing the interests of workers. There are elements of protection not included in law - for example minimum wage - that are instead covered by union protection.
Tesla has taken a position that it will not sign up to collective bargaining globally - and so won't engage with the unions on it. That creates a fissure: a difference in policy.
So it's not anti-American. It's a refusal to accept the terms on which a corporation wants to engage. A similar situation happened with Klarna and Spotify as others have pointed out.
It might verge on anti-Musk, but only because this kind of thing is in "red rag to a bull" territory for him. He is utterly recalcitrant generally: backing down isn't in his nature. It would seem that has only stiffened the resolve of the Nordic workers and unions.
But even then it's equally valid to see Musk as "Anti-Sweden": unwilling to respect cultural norms in a country he wants his company to operate in.
Klarna also had a breakdown with unions but ultimately signed an agreement in the last minute before strikes started to happen.
What makes Tesla different from Klarna and Spotify is that Tesla has a global policy to never sign. So Tesla’s Swedish company is prohibited by Tesla to do any kind of negotiation, and that escalates things drastically.
What makes Tesla different from Klarna and Spotify is that Tesla has a global policy to never sign. So Tesla’s Swedish company is prohibited by Tesla to do any kind of negotiation, and that escalates things drastically.
> What makes Tesla different from Klarna and Spotify
The "heritage" between the three is also different. Klarna and Spotify are/was Swedish, they know what going up against a union means, and it often involves going against multiple unions as they all help each other.
Tesla clearly have no idea what they were going against, as what is happening now is such an obvious fallout from not understanding the country they're operating in.
The "heritage" between the three is also different. Klarna and Spotify are/was Swedish, they know what going up against a union means, and it often involves going against multiple unions as they all help each other.
Tesla clearly have no idea what they were going against, as what is happening now is such an obvious fallout from not understanding the country they're operating in.
Spotify found some success with their anti-union campaign, and managed to mostly silently terminate the negotiation. With the layoffs happening this week, I imagine the appetite for picking up these talks again could return.
Klarna tried to basically 1:1 copy the anti-union campaign of Spotify, but it failed that time on account of the unions having learned to cope with that type of propaganda. Klarna is now under a union contract.
Klarna tried to basically 1:1 copy the anti-union campaign of Spotify, but it failed that time on account of the unions having learned to cope with that type of propaganda. Klarna is now under a union contract.
Spotify has negotiated, they just haven't come to an agreement.
Tesla has refused to negotiate. Even then, it still took five years before the conflict escalated.
At some point negotiations with Spotify will have to be restarted. It's likely not an option for Spotify to exit the country completely, which is perfectly possible for Tesla.
Tesla has refused to negotiate. Even then, it still took five years before the conflict escalated.
At some point negotiations with Spotify will have to be restarted. It's likely not an option for Spotify to exit the country completely, which is perfectly possible for Tesla.
More clicks. Tesla is an American company and has an actual ongoing strike.
Spotify is Swedish and there is currently no ongoing strike. If you look for articles in Swedish, you'll see plenty.
Spotify is Swedish and there is currently no ongoing strike. If you look for articles in Swedish, you'll see plenty.
Different unions.
Not only that, but the co-founder and CEO of Spotify is also Swedish which means he has some perspective on how unions work in Sweden so he can be pragmatic. Musk lacks any sort of perspective in that market, seemingly.
Why do I have the feeling one of the main outcomes of this is PostNord loses business of deliverying the license plates and other courier gets the tender instead?
That's tricky in Sweden, PostNord is by a far distance the best delivery mechanism (it customer service still sucks though), if you go far up North or rural many other delivery services are hard to find. There is a lot of things to be said about PostNord but its most reliable.
I really don't think this is tricky at all. If Musk is serious about the fight then I'm sure that for the right price they can find other couriers to meet their needs. Even if they had to pay an order of magnitude more money. It would only be for the short term.
It’s the Swedish transport authority that ships the license plates and PostNord has won that tender and there is no way this will impact that.
You can’t have a “should not respect strikes” clause in your tender, especially not as a government agency
You can’t have a “should not respect strikes” clause in your tender, especially not as a government agency
This isn't possible for Tesla because PostNord currently has the exclusive right to deliver license plates - they literally can't hire any other courier company to do it.
They could, the next time the contract is up for renegotiation.
It would require however that there are other couriers that fulfill their safety requirements with the logistic infrastructure to deliver to the entire country. That's not likely. But entirely within the realm of possibility that someone with deep pockets could start one.
However it would not make any difference for Tesla, as that courier would also be unionized. Few other companies would do business with them otherwise, as Tesla is about to find out.
It would require however that there are other couriers that fulfill their safety requirements with the logistic infrastructure to deliver to the entire country. That's not likely. But entirely within the realm of possibility that someone with deep pockets could start one.
However it would not make any difference for Tesla, as that courier would also be unionized. Few other companies would do business with them otherwise, as Tesla is about to find out.
They can, they can just face potential legal issues. Which Tesla would claim PostNord is in breach of contract for failing to deliver the license plates. PostNord would claim the right to strike and Tesla should claim it's PostNord's responsibility to find others willing to do the job in the place of striking workers.
Isn't one of the main issues deliveries to their factory?
It being Sweden, the other couriers are probably unionised.
Considering all Tesla imports come from Germany or China, I feel Sweden will be on the losing end of this.
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.
I find this comment disturbing - you are suggesting that 3 nations combined, some of the richest cointries on earth, lack either power or authority to reign in what a foreign corporstion does on their soil?
How do you reconsile that such belief with democracy?
Because that set of beliefs is only compatiable with belief in some kind of trans-national oligarchy. Or maybe some sort of America-centeic-colonialism, i am struggling to think of better term.
How do you reconsile that such belief with democracy?
Because that set of beliefs is only compatiable with belief in some kind of trans-national oligarchy. Or maybe some sort of America-centeic-colonialism, i am struggling to think of better term.
I’m not entirely sure what the GP commenter is trying to say, but I’m also not sure how they imply Sweden, Germany, and China are working together, as I think is implied in your comment in that their power or authority is combined. Could you maybe rephrase what you mean, or how you interpreted their comment?
i mean authority of Sweden, Norway and Denmark since their unions are striking
You have no idea how many teslas there are on the roads in sweden.
If that's how Tesla is going to "solve" this, they will very quickly find the unions handling shipping and customs join the strikes.
The Guardian kept the most picante part for the end. Perhaps because it might undo the “Tesla is losing” sentiment the media want to conjure up?
“In a case related to the PostNord action, a court on 27 November ruled that the Swedish Transport Agency must find a way to get licence plates to Tesla. The agency has appealed against the decision.
Some Swedish pension funds have urged Tesla to sign the agreement with the union, but have so far held off from selling their shares.”
“In a case related to the PostNord action, a court on 27 November ruled that the Swedish Transport Agency must find a way to get licence plates to Tesla. The agency has appealed against the decision.
Some Swedish pension funds have urged Tesla to sign the agreement with the union, but have so far held off from selling their shares.”
Probably because on December 7 a higher court "Hovratten" stayed earlier court's order and the transport agency is still not forced to deliver the plates. Final decision has not been taken.
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/tesla-far-vanta-pa-registreringssk...
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/tesla-far-vanta-pa-registreringssk...
So a shipping company is refusing to deliver packages to a specific company?
This sounds like a shakedown.
This sounds like a shakedown.
That is of course exactly what it is.
What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord. So Tesla has no choice over using PostNord, they are mandated by law to do so to receive their plates, yet a private interest group can arbitrarily deny them access to public services.
There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold.
The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.
There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold.
The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.
It’s easy to avoid actions like this:
Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration.
So far two international companies have refused this:
Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in.
Tesla now.
Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration.
So far two international companies have refused this:
Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in.
Tesla now.
What you seem to miss is that this is not a labor dispute, it's a political dispute, Tesla has absolutely no conflict with its own employees. The employees of other companies - some, essential service providers for Swedish state - selectively target Tesla for what they perceive as a political threat to their interests.
Where will these political demands stop? Will the unions drive into a bankruptcy any company that expands in another low cost, not unionized country? Any company that employs migrants? Who would bet a billion dollar investment on the answer to such questions?
Where will these political demands stop? Will the unions drive into a bankruptcy any company that expands in another low cost, not unionized country? Any company that employs migrants? Who would bet a billion dollar investment on the answer to such questions?
VoxPelli(1)
Why? They pay taxes. They pay shipping. Why do you also have to pay extortion fees?
Nobody is demanding any fees.
Of course you sign a contract when doing business. It's like that in any market economy.
What's peculiar about Sweden is how that extends to the labor market. So instead of commercial civil law you have contract law. That's the only difference.
Tesla can either negotiate a contract and do business, or exit the market. They are free to do either.
What seemingly confuses people is that Tesla is not breaking any civil law. Only contract law, which the market has organized around, and which it is free to refuse their business about.
Of course you sign a contract when doing business. It's like that in any market economy.
What's peculiar about Sweden is how that extends to the labor market. So instead of commercial civil law you have contract law. That's the only difference.
Tesla can either negotiate a contract and do business, or exit the market. They are free to do either.
What seemingly confuses people is that Tesla is not breaking any civil law. Only contract law, which the market has organized around, and which it is free to refuse their business about.
Because in Sweden it’s not the government that micromanages the job market, it’s the industry and the unions that does so together, so paying taxes is irrelevant.
> extortion fees
They have options of course:
1) Stop doing business in Sweden.
2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.
They have options of course:
1) Stop doing business in Sweden.
2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.
Just because every other company in Sweden accepts extortion as part and parcel of doing business does not make extortion okay.
> extortion
Complying with labor protections is not extortion.
And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.
Complying with labor protections is not extortion.
And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.
Just because you pay something, it does not give you free reign to go against the local customs and traditions. Go to a cinema, buy a ticket and be loud and obnoxious; see how fast they throw you out, regardless of having paid. Its not illegal to be obnoxious, but it is frowned upon.
This is a false dichotomy.
This is buying a ticket to the movie and then a mobster taking another fee at the door.
This is buying a ticket to the movie and then a mobster taking another fee at the door.
> What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord.
Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation.
The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.
Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation.
The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.
Unlike the USPS, which is a a government branch with an universal service obligation, Sweeden has a liberalized postal market. This means PostNord won a public tender and has a contract to deliver services to the Swedish government, regardless of the ownership structure.
So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.
So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.
The "rule of law" in Sweden explicitly permits collective action of this nature, doesn't it? Hence the court ruling?
"The rule of law" is a general philosophical and legal doctrine, not the laws that happen to operate in a certain country at a certain moment. If, for example, the constitution places all decision power in the hands of a dictator, that would not be a rule-of-law regime, even if the decrees issued by said dictator are, technically speaking, legal. Historical examples of "legal" atrocities abound.
What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.
What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.
Especially for US investors I suspect. That this is legal and seems to be at least partially government led, is absolutely mind boggling to me.
It isn't quite legal -- it's just customary to pretend it is.
The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary.
That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;)
Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions.
I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...
The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary.
That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;)
Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions.
I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...
> I think Tesla has a good case here
You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them.
They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market.
> and are therefore risky places to invest
It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.
You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them.
They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market.
> and are therefore risky places to invest
It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.
The people who actually work for Tesla do not refuse to do business with Tesla.
It's other people who want to exercise their customary (but not really legal) right to extract private taxes who try to force Tesla to comply by sabotaging their business.
It's other people who want to exercise their customary (but not really legal) right to extract private taxes who try to force Tesla to comply by sabotaging their business.
This is either a misunderstanding or some sort of conspiracy theory I am unaware of. This is not a question of taxation, unless you are alluding to some "lawyer tax" which is the price of doing business.
Tesla needs a contract with the labor market. It's that simple. Matters of the workplace is mostly under contract law in Sweden, as opposed to civil law. That's unusual internationally, even if all the Nordic countries have similar systems, but it is what it is. Free actors competing in an open market under contract law should be appealing to anyone with a libertarian bent.
The people who actually work for Tesla are car mechanics and it is the union that organizes car mechanics that is the pushing for a contract, so it is certainly people who work there who is behind the strike. They are known by name and give interviews with media, you can fact check everything so there's nothing strange going on.
And certainly nobody wants to sabotage anything. That would be counterproductive. Unions in general has every incentive to help create strong companies who can compete internationally and create as many local jobs as possible. This situation is not different, apart from the fact that they have not even started negotiations yet.
Tesla needs a contract with the labor market. It's that simple. Matters of the workplace is mostly under contract law in Sweden, as opposed to civil law. That's unusual internationally, even if all the Nordic countries have similar systems, but it is what it is. Free actors competing in an open market under contract law should be appealing to anyone with a libertarian bent.
The people who actually work for Tesla are car mechanics and it is the union that organizes car mechanics that is the pushing for a contract, so it is certainly people who work there who is behind the strike. They are known by name and give interviews with media, you can fact check everything so there's nothing strange going on.
And certainly nobody wants to sabotage anything. That would be counterproductive. Unions in general has every incentive to help create strong companies who can compete internationally and create as many local jobs as possible. This situation is not different, apart from the fact that they have not even started negotiations yet.
Speaking of dirty fights, I'm not quite sure if Sweden can afford to win this. They are a major exporter in the US, Volvo brands control 15% of the truck market. US is one of the three major export destinations for Sweden, and a good chunk of the $18 billion exports are vehicles and related parts and supplies.
So if the Swedish state, by its inaction, allows an American car company to be targeted by public employees to the point where it is driven out of the market, the proportional retaliation from the US is not a 10% or 20% import duty; it's the complete blocking of Swedish brands. This would cost Sweden entire percentages of GDP and countless jobs.
So if the Swedish state, by its inaction, allows an American car company to be targeted by public employees to the point where it is driven out of the market, the proportional retaliation from the US is not a 10% or 20% import duty; it's the complete blocking of Swedish brands. This would cost Sweden entire percentages of GDP and countless jobs.
The important detail which most people seem to miss is that Tesla's workers aren't behind this. They don't want to unionize, because there's no reason to.
The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
> The important detail which most people seem to miss is that Tesla's workers aren't behind this. They don't want to unionize, because there's no reason to.
> The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
What sort of people do you think IF Metall is made up of? It's the second largest union in Sweden, the people who are a part of the union are also workers at Tesla and other companies. It's not made up of "career-unionists" if that's what you thought.
> The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
What sort of people do you think IF Metall is made up of? It's the second largest union in Sweden, the people who are a part of the union are also workers at Tesla and other companies. It's not made up of "career-unionists" if that's what you thought.
The point is that it's not Tesla's employees that are behind it.
It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
> The point is that it's not Tesla's employees that are behind it.
Unions don't do solidarity strikes across the entire Nordics without having the support of the people they're trying to help.
> It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
The people you call "the management of the labour unions" are workers just like the rest. Again, they are not "career-unionists", they are workers who care about worker rights, just like all the other people at the other unions joining the strike.
Unions don't do solidarity strikes across the entire Nordics without having the support of the people they're trying to help.
> It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
The people you call "the management of the labour unions" are workers just like the rest. Again, they are not "career-unionists", they are workers who care about worker rights, just like all the other people at the other unions joining the strike.
The Tesla employees are behind it. Maybe not all. Some because they are scared of getting punished by Tesla. Something Tesla has indeed threatened with as far as I’m aware.
> 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.
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.
It's a huge organization and has definitely a lot of people employed as "career-unionists". Who do you think the membership fee goes? The membership fee is typically 1.5% of employee salary. Just with a quick calculation 1.5% of 300,000 members x $50,000 average salary results into $225,000,000.
Despite what HN seems to think, these unions are bullies and completely unnecessary middle men.
Despite what HN seems to think, these unions are bullies and completely unnecessary middle men.
The fee goes to organise actions, like that people can strike but still get paid.
How much experience do you have with Swedish unions specifically? And with Swedish industry in general?
Judging by your comments, your experience seems to come from reading US news, is that close to the truth?
For example, the percentage of your salary for membership is not a static one, it varies. And even so, it has a max amount (around 60USD last time I checked). Did you account for that when doing your calculations?
How much experience do you have with Swedish unions specifically? And with Swedish industry in general?
Judging by your comments, your experience seems to come from reading US news, is that close to the truth?
For example, the percentage of your salary for membership is not a static one, it varies. And even so, it has a max amount (around 60USD last time I checked). Did you account for that when doing your calculations?
This is pure propaganda and can be ignored outright.
IF Metall are driving these negotiations on behalf of their members working at Tesla - had they not shown any interest, IF Metall would not have bothered.
IF Metall are driving these negotiations on behalf of their members working at Tesla - had they not shown any interest, IF Metall would not have bothered.
No, it's not. Only 10% of Tesla employees have joined the strike. [0]
[0] https://twitter.com/NicklasNilsso14/status/17255571334358634...
[0] https://twitter.com/NicklasNilsso14/status/17255571334358634...
Tesla's employees in Sweden are not represented by a single union. Unions are on a -profession basis in Sweden. Only the employees under IF Metall are called out to a strike.
You're literally quoting a letter from Tesla, this has no credibility whatsoever.
You're literally quoting a letter from Tesla, this has no credibility whatsoever.
Tesla should crush pesky swedish unions, no matter what.
Buy ports, buy ships, buy trucks, buy electricians, buy a brand new postal service etc.
The $26 B cash on hand should be used somewhere, instead of usual executive package and share buyback.
Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
Buy ports, buy ships, buy trucks, buy electricians, buy a brand new postal service etc.
The $26 B cash on hand should be used somewhere, instead of usual executive package and share buyback.
Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
> The $26 B cash on hand should be used somewhere, instead of usual executive package and share buyback.
Yup, squashing worker rights for corporations everywhere sounds like a good way of spending $26B.
> Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
Why don't you try to read the guidelines before posting, if you think you might be breaking some guideline?
But no, you're getting downvoted not because of breaking the rules, but because of the horrible opinion and lack of care of the common worker.
Yup, squashing worker rights for corporations everywhere sounds like a good way of spending $26B.
> Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
Why don't you try to read the guidelines before posting, if you think you might be breaking some guideline?
But no, you're getting downvoted not because of breaking the rules, but because of the horrible opinion and lack of care of the common worker.
This is one of these cases where one would assume that it's a joke, but because Naughty Old Mr Car is involved, Poe's Law is in full effect.
So, assuming you're serious... Eh?
Tesla shareholder meeting, 2024. "We're going to spend 26 billion dollars on attempting to build a parallel economy in Sweden." ".... Why?" "Oh, spite, mostly."
How do you think that would go over?
So, assuming you're serious... Eh?
Tesla shareholder meeting, 2024. "We're going to spend 26 billion dollars on attempting to build a parallel economy in Sweden." ".... Why?" "Oh, spite, mostly."
How do you think that would go over?
I'm sure the shareholders will agree that spending so much money on something so obviously unprofitable is a good idea.
Spending 0 dollars on just fucking signing the contract like literally everyone else in the country, or several billions trying to construct a parallel society in Sweden. This parallel society would of course have just as much right to strike as the current one, given that the right to strike is constitutionally protected in Sweden.
I guess it would be an effective way of dethroning Elon from Tesla, so I agree - let's go ahead and do it.
Spending 0 dollars on just fucking signing the contract like literally everyone else in the country, or several billions trying to construct a parallel society in Sweden. This parallel society would of course have just as much right to strike as the current one, given that the right to strike is constitutionally protected in Sweden.
I guess it would be an effective way of dethroning Elon from Tesla, so I agree - let's go ahead and do it.
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.
Why?
That’s cute Go and try that somewhere else where it might work. We don’t need any Tesla / douchemobiles here.
In Finland, Tesla repair shops follow the minimums stated in collective agreements and Musk probably don't even know about it. In Sweden it's issue for him.
Finland has generally applicable collective agreements where employers should observe at least the provisions of a national collective agreement considered representative in the relevant sector. When a collective agreement is nationwide and covers over 50% of the workforce in a relevant sector, it becomes generally applicable and binding even for companies that did not agree on the terms.