I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?
If Elon tries to forcefully break up a strike, he will just amass the wrath of other unions and the entire Swedish population turning an issue of collective agreement into a political problem. I honestly don't see this ending well for Tesla.
The US is one of the few places which allows this. (That is a "Today I Learned".)
If I read https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpsla... right, Sweden got rid of the legal right to employ strikebreakers in 1938 when they switched to the "Swedish Model" based more on collective bargaining than on government involvement.
Someone used to the US laws should be aware that different countries don't use the same legal framework.
While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's one mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 , are illegal in the US due to the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act.)
The US court interpretation encourages strike breaking. For example, when combined with the decertification provision of Taft-Hartley Act, you can hire strikebreakers then have the new population of workers decertify the union. (This is one of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... .)
So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker.
These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
To give what I think is a reasonable analogy, Sweden does not have a minimum wage law while the US does. Instead, minimum wages are determined by union agreements on an industry sector basis.
A US employer who enters Sweden and offers a position for only $5/hour might consider that reasonable, as there is no law against it. However, they would (as the Denmark/McDonald's case shows) be subject to industry action that is prohibited in the US.
Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
>So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?
I think sympathy strikes are legal in Sweden. That makes them a legally allowed consequence. If I understand the Denmark McDonald's case correctly, then the Swedish equivalent of the Teamsters could decide to not deliver parts to a Tesla repair shop.
> Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
Yes. Why is it so important to only look at what the law says about strikebreakers? There's also the overall economics.
As I understand it, in the US you can fire someone on strike and replace them with a permanent worker, so long as it is justified economically and not due "anti-union animus" - and the latter is hard to prove.
As I understand it, going on strike in Sweden not considered grounds for terminating the employment.
So if the employer hires a strike breaker - which is legal! - then once the worker ends the strike, the Swedish employer must continue to employ the worker and the strike breaker, under much stronger employee protections than in the US. That makes it expensive to hire strike breakers.
This makes the US a much easier place to use strikebreakers, even before considering its combination with anti-worker laws like Taft-Hartley.
Furthermore, much of what you said is not true with respect to the US.
Striking workers can almost never be fired in the USA [1]. The only "difference" is you dont have to keep on the strike breakers.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
The workers get 100% payed while striking, and the unions coffers are deep, they can wait.
To be clear, the main thing I am objecting to in these posts is the sentiment that posters have a superior knowledge, legal or cultrial, that tesla does not.
"I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?"
I read this as an statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so.
My comments were not concerning Tesla. They were to clarify why the law is relevant, in response to your comment "I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036925 .
This is the sentiment I am pushing back on. It seems very arrogant for amateur internet posters to think they know more than the tesla legal team and tesla management team after reading about the topic for 2 minutes.
It is fine to not understand the tesla position, and fine to not not agree with with the morality.
I just dont think it is reasonable for people to assume they are more knowledgeable about the detail simply because they dont understand or agree.
It reduces to "I dont understand their actions, so they must be stupider than me", which I think is a foolish response, but unfortunately quite common.
Tesla is the one with access to their cost modeling for hiring scabs and the legal team. They know the long term costs of union agreements, and if they spread to other countries. They have teams of lawyers.
But no, surely some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
It seems par for the course for internet posters.
> I just dont think it is reasonable for people to assume they are more knowledgeable
I think the position is "this does not make sense, and I am surprised they did this."
> so they must be stupider than me
Even setting aside how they might be playing 4D chess while us chumps are playing tic-tac-toe, "stupity" is quite different from "ill-informed". It is also different from "arrogant".
Was McDonald's "stupid" in trying to enter Denmark as they did?
> They know the long term costs of union agreements, and if they spread to other countries.
How do you know that?
IF Metall also has lawyers and cost modeling, and more experience with the Swedish labor market.
Aren't you being arrogant in thinking that after 2 minutes of reading about the topic that you know better than them?
Tesla "claims that it doesn't sign collective bargaining agreements anywhere in the world" - are you really sure that decision was made with lawyers present who understood the Swedish labor market?
> some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
Saying "it does not make sense" does not imply the person making the opinion has a better understanding, only that it does not make sense.
I havent seen them personally, but IF Metall gave them a list of demands, so they at least have something.
>IF Metall also has lawyers and cost modeling, and more experience with the Swedish labor market.Aren't you being arrogant in thinking that after 2 minutes of reading about the topic that you know better than them?
Im not making any judgement on IF Metall is right, wrong, or misinformed about anything. I assume they are much more informed than I am, about Swedish law, practice, and Tesla's interests.
>Tesla "claims that it doesn't sign collective bargaining agreements anywhere in the world" - are you really sure that decision was made with lawyers present who understood the Swedish labor market?
I do note that IF Metall didnt make any public statements that it is illegal to bring in strikebreakers. Also, "we wont sign union contracts" isnt a statement on the law. It is a statement about what they do or will do.
> some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
>Saying "it does not make sense" does not imply the person making the opinion has a better understanding, only that it does not make sense.
I totally agree, but that is not the only thing I read in these posts. There is usually criticism along the lines of "statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so."
The simplest explanation is that they do know about labor relations in the EU, but dont care, are willing to take a risk, think they can change things, or are willing to walk away.
That means it make take years until you have the job back, depending on turnover and the number of replacements.
How is that not the same as having your job replaced by a strikebreaker?
[0]: Specifically the law addresses "loan workers" but Germany has fairly strict laws surrounding so-called "independent contractors" in these roles: https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11
Looks like there is an expectation that Tesla behaves in a certain way in Sweden because "that's way we've always done it" but that's not in law. Tesla is sticking to the law, as far as I understand.
I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law.
Of course, if workes and unions disagree they can also use their legal rights to try to force Tesla to reconsider. But if they wanted to make all companies behave in a certain way they they should have put that in law.
That said, we already have determined that generally just "sticking to the law" isn't a great defense in all situations anyway.
Now, as mentioned, in business other parties can also use their legal rights to bring about negotiations, but let's not depict Tesla as horrible for simply staying within the law...
What you want is much closer to mob rule, as seen by societies using the law for horrible purposes. Narrow legalistic views allow for the most horrible atrocities.
Everyone always makes demands that go far above the law. Your legal demand to those around you is "don't murder me, vandalize my things and steal the remains". Your full demand also involves amongst others respectful treatment and consideration, and you don't socialize with those you who treat your poorly even though such treatment was perfectly legal.
The law sets the bar for criminal liability. Society as a whole and its individuals freely set the bar for cooperation. A unionized work force is a social group that has formalized in advance the bar to cooperate with them.
You can absolutely expect people to do more than just obey the law. Everybody does. Tesla does not, and that may lead Tesla's employees to use their perfectly legal right to strike. And by your standards, you can't demand that they don't strike, because it's legal.
But it's a shitty basis for a relationship. If Tesla wants its workers to do good work for them, they need to listen to their workers.
Sure you can — "sign this contract to get this result" — just so long as you yourself aren't breaking the law in making the demand.
Following the law is a very low bar because of that, since employers and unions are supposed to be able to sort things out between themselves. If companies begin to just "stick to the law" the system will break down obviously and a new system will have to replace it.
Internationalisation is putting this to the test.
They can disagree with unions and the people within the law, just as they can fail as a business from making enemies of the whole country within the law. Civil customs and agreements are not meant to be law.
Although germany recently ended up introducing a legal minimum wage because an other US corp was being too shit about it (I don’t remember if it was amazon or something like walmart).
This is very different from the neoliberal argument against minimum wages which boils down to "if we need to pay workers a livable wage our profit margins would be tighter" or more charitably "if we need to pay workers a livable wage some jobs would become unprofitable and we'd have to lay those people off" (which only holds true when the jobs are non-essential to the company in such a way that laying people off doesn't mean outsourcing them - a lot of low-paying jobs are absolutely essential to business operations but are seen as cost centers because they don't directly contribute to revenue).
The reason the EU is "pushing for minimum wages" is that the EU pushed for the liberalisation of markets in EU countries some twenty years ago (and its various extensions thereof) and that led to an increase in wealth gaps, a loss of income security, gutting of social welfare systems and the proliferation of temp work agencies (which e.g. in Germany were illegal up to that point and offer an easy way to sidestep unions). Minimum wage is a bandaid for the gashing wound left by market liberalisation.
This is beside the point of what a legal minimum wage is, orthogonal with negotiations through unions, and has nothing to do with liberalisation.
There is no reason for Sweden not to have a legal minimum wage. From an outsider's POV this really seems to be psycho-rigid stance "no our system does not need one!" when it actually does not hurt the system or negotiations through unions at all.
In a way, I think what's happening with Tesla is making noise because it's putting them on the spot. They are running around crying "but you can't do that!!" because the fact is that actually Tesla can and that's exposing the weakness of the whole system, which is actually informal and not backed by law at all.
That's not saying that Tesla won't back down and reach a deal with the unions, but they are only doing what they are entitled to do.
As others have pointed out, you seem to misunderstand what laws are and what they are for. They're not special and they're not magic, they're just slightly more rigid frames padded with layers of contracts and ultimately held together by good will.
To put it another way: a law can not stop me from killing you. Gun laws can make it more difficult for me to acquire a suitable weapon to do so, laws requiring the presence of an armed police officer at every corner may make it more difficult without having to deal with the police officer first, or immigration laws may make it more difficult to reach you, and murder being illegal means I'm very likely to suffer consequences after killing you (or after failing to do so if the attempt is illegal) but if I'm in front of you with a loaded gun in my hand, what's stopping me from killing you isn't the law.
I'm not saying Tesla can't do things differently as long as they operate within the law. I'm not even arguing whether its immoral for them to do so[0]. I'm just saying that laws are in the most real sense of the word socially constructed and they're an artefact of society, not the other way around. If laws are in conflict with a society's understanding of justice, eventually the laws will change, one way or another.
[0]: It is, although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone - which is fine, of course, in terms of it being possible for your ethical system to be internally consistent. It just makes me think less of you as a human.
I am only pointing out that this is not black and white, and that it is hypocritical to be outraged at Tesla when they are not doing anything illegal, especially when Sweden has historically refused to legislate. But I guess there is also a part of Elon-bashing here.
I don't "misunderstand what laws are", by the way, on the contrary. That's why I don't like mod rule and the replies on this here are actually worrying.
This whole thread is rather low quality, I am afraid to say... "Tesla bad" and that's it, basically.
> although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone
This has nothing to do with what I wrote and is no more than a thin-veiled ad hominem insult.
It’s fine to say “I think Tesla should pay more and not hire scabs”
The difference between law and opinion determines how this is enforced.
If actions are illegal, the government forces compliance.
If it is a matter of opinion, then it is up to the involved parties to sort it out themselves. This could be based on their negotiating leverage. Strikes, scabs, boycotts, and sympathy strikes are all fair game
Are you serious? Should you only be allowed to criticise companies (and people?) when they break the law? That would be the end of free speech.
Obeying the law is not synonymous with doing good. The law is the very bottom line, but there's tons of shitty behaviour that's perfectly legal. That doesn't mean it's okay. There are tons of ways in which you can be an asshole without doing anything illegal. You won't go to prison, but people will criticise and avoid you.
Don't make the law your only basis for morality. Laws can be wrong, and they're certainly not enough. Because if you do that, you're basically demanding that every aspect of society be completely legislated, and that's a really bad idea.
There's different levels in criticism. Here Tesla seems to be hammered simply for sticking with the law. This is excessive, IMO: if what they are doing is so outrageous then that should not be allowed in law.
> Why so emotional?
I don't know. Ask Elon. He hasn't been very rational lately.
That's why the rule of law has been so important in the struggle for free societies and liberty.