I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant
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?