Not a lot of room for negotiating in that case.
It also adds another layer of management between the workers and those paying them.
Those are both things that you should want to avoid, and if the company is treating people well, they probably don't see a compelling need to spite themselves by enacting extra management layers and costs.
A workforce that thinks a union is dumb (sans campaigning) is the ideal state of workforce.
> A workforce that thinks a union is dumb (sans campaigning) is the ideal state of workforce.
So about 70% of the workforce is Sweden is not "in ideal state" according to you, as about 70% is part of a union?
Probably. I'm not sure why that would seem far-fetched. But, like you said, my comment is based on a US American understanding of unions, and Sweden may be different enough for this story to have other interesting dimensions.
I've heard some horror stories in Sweden about small local unions that act like the US ones, but that's pretty rare.
Sweden has a system that is based mainly on negotiations between the employers and the unions. This has worked fairly well for 90 years now.
When the big Swedish companies like Volvo, Ericsson, Skanska, SAAB etc have to make drastic cuts, this is normally done with the union on board and few strikes.
Stock based compensation is not allowed for UAW so yes, they are very much under that impression because it literally true.
This does not apply for other potential countries of course, but at least in the US and Canada this isn't gone happen.