This doesn’t really give any examples of what working conditions are bad at Tesla that are causing the strike
"Collective agreements are the basis of the Swedish labour market model. This means that the trade unions and the employers' organizations determine the rules of the game in the labour market, without interference from the state and politicians. In Sweden, approximately nine out of ten workers are covered by collective agreements.
The terms of the collective agreement include wages, form of employment, occupational pension, working hours, vacations, and periods of notice. Thus, the employers benefit from industry-specific, long-term, and stable ground rules. "
It's hard to understand this. Why take the job if you don't like the pay? Taking the job at a certain wage and then striking seems the wrong way to go about things. Can anyone who knows the system explain this a little more?
With Universal Basic Income perhaps this could be avoided.
I would guess hardly any employees will strike, because a collective agreement would probably not involve any stock options/RSU's at all.
For instance, Sweden does not have a minimum wage. Instead we have collective agreements which stipulate these issues.
If you install a reasonable minimum wage, it increases the freedom in the labor market by reducing the chains of collective agreements. It gives employees more options, flexibility, and power of self determination which can only be to their benefit.
The swedish model basically sets minimum wage by sector. Much more tailored to the employers and employees.
But this is the same argument for why there shouldn't be one at all.
One of the major problems with the minimum wage in the US is that it de facto destroys training programs for entry-level employees. You could go to a school and pay them money to be trained or go to Walmart and do unskilled labor for low wages.
But if you want to go to an employer and spend 40 hours there of which half is working and half is learning, what's the appropriate wage for that? You might very well should be paying them -- they're getting as yet still unskilled labor and you're getting qualified to do a job that would ultimately pay above-median wages that you might otherwise pay $30,000/year in tuition for. Taking that deal with them paying you $2/hour could be a bargain. But not if it's prohibited by law.
Meanwhile someone could then offer $2/hour for an ordinary job, but who is going to take them up on that for no countervailing benefit when other employers pay more? It's the same reason 98% of people are paid more than the existing minimum wage despite no legal requirement to do so.