Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

Worth keeping in mind, is that it seems like Tesla was threatening employees in case they participated in the strike, according to SVT:

> The strike at Tesla's Swedish operations continues. According to the union, several employees have been threatened by the company if they go on strike. There have also been reports of strikebreaking.

> "We have members who confirm this. Tesla managers have threatened layoffs. They have also threatened to withdraw the option program that Tesla has, where you get shares for a certain number of years," says IF Metall's contract secretary Veli-Pekka Säikkälä.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/orebro/facket-strejkande-p...

If the report is true, no wonder people still continue going to work like nothing is happening.

Also, there is a lot of conflicted reporting on the whole Tesla vs Unions in Sweden story, not sure what sources one could trust or not.

View on HN

Is that even legal in Sweden? I can imagine the unions will do some solidarity strikes if true.

I don't think strikebreaking is illegal by law in Sweden (but long time I lived in Sweden and was more involved, maybe I remember things wrong or things have changed). But definitely wildly frowned upon, so if the article I linked before is true, then there will be solidarity strikes for sure.

I think threatening with layoffs if striking is also not illegal? But historically, with the Scandinavian union model, you’re in for a ride. E.g. with union-supported class actions from fired employees.

> If the report is true, no wonder people still continue going to work like nothing is happening.

Firing people for striking is legal in Sweden if the strike is too long, the reason the strike failed is that the workers didn't care enough not that the employer did something bad. If Tesla want to operate in Sweden without support from the unions they are allowed to do so, but that will hurt them a lot as well, not many companies choose to fight with the unions.

Threatened… or informed them about what would happen? What’s the difference?

The company firing all previous employees is a risk of a strike. Striking is a negotiating tactic. Tesla's response is hostile negotiation but it appears that the employees agree that what they have is better than whatever else they could get.

> Tesla's response is hostile negotiation but it appears that the employees agree that what they have is better than whatever else they could get.

If you're being threatened of being fired for even negotiating ("striking"), would you continue to "negotiate"? Might be that they don't agree they have it better than elsewhere, but the alternative is being fired, so they'll just be fine with the situation as-is.

If they are going to fire everyone who strikes the rational choice is to find a new job while continuing to work then quit without notice, preferably in mass.

Expecting a company to just bow to all demands from unions is unreasonable. Losing your job is a risk of striking. That should be known going in. If you aren't willing to lose your job by striking you shouldn't be striking.

Threats are negotiation. The union threatened to strike. The company let the union know what their response would be.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with employment laws in Sweden, but you cannot just fire people willy-nilly, you need to have "Objective grounds for dismissal" in order to fire someone. For example, you are not allowed to fire someone because they're participating in a union, as a employer you'd be setting up yourself to get sued if you do this.

Question is, what "participating" actually refers to. One could make the case that striking is just a part of normal participation in the union, while one could also make the opposite case of course. In the end, seems it'd be up to the courts to decide.

There is a right to strike in the Swedish law as well. As long as the strike is legal (has to be a union involved and follow certain procedures) the employer definitely can not fire anyone. And the union in a case like this is paying all the employees 100% of their salaries while it is ongoing, for however long it will take.

In Sweden, the union can blockade a company that they are "negotiating" with.

That means that all other unions will refuse to work with that company, and this goes for both suppliers and customers of the blockaded company. No more transportation services, buying parts, getting service people to show up when your equipment is broken, delivering your goods to customers, etc.

So, being blockaded is a risk which should be known going in.

Sweden isn't the USA. You can't just fire people like that, especially not for exercising one of their fundamental rights.

Of course you can fire them, as long as you can afford it.

No, you can't. The courts would annul such termination.

Which will make the managers bully them until they leave.

Luckily, union membership is widespread in Sweden and they'll most definitely help you with this.

Fun fact: managers have their own union in Sweden as well! ("ledarna", literal translation: "leaders") And as the other commentator mentioned, you'd most probably lose your position as the company if you participate in bullying, and if your union finds out, you'll most likely get kicked out of the union as well.

This is called mobbing and you will get removed from manager position ASAP if someone can collect slightest proof (in EU)

Not happening. Not unless said manager wants to be in a whole lot of trouble.

Just curious, how does that work out usually. Seems there would be a loss of trust between employee and employer that would make continuing that relationship untenable for one side or the other.

The employer pays up according to some schedule. And then you're free to go to work elsewhere. Or they can take you back (but that would happen very rarely).

Correct. The courts can annul a baseless termination.

But the employer can then still refuse to take the employee back. In that case the employer owes the employee 6-32 months pay in damages, and the employment contract becomes legally terminated.

Source: The Swedish law on employment protection, paragraph 39:

"Where an employer refuses to comply with a judgement by which a court has annulled a dismissal or redundancy or has declared a fixed-term contract to be of indefinite duration, the employment relationship shall be deemed to have been terminated. The employer shall pay damages to the employee for his refusal in accordance with the following provisions."

https://lagen.nu/1982:80#P39S1

Even in the USA i think it might be illegal?

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em....

Now is that when the ocean snails begin walking widdershins or during the vernal-republican equinox? If a corporate regulation falls in the forest and no one is around to enforce it, does it make a sound?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com