I'm surprised the government of Sweden allows a labor union to decide what passes through the country's ports.
Not every country has elected to be a slave to rugged capitalism. A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
Think of it like people having talked about their salary in advance so when they walk into a negotiation and hear a number that's lower than their peers, they can call bullshit and make a take it or leave it counter.
Companies get upset about unions because they're not paying fair pay right now and know it, and if everyone in a trade demands the same minimum rate then they have to accept it.
https://mothership.sg/2017/11/lee-kuan-yew-singapore-airline...
> Recounting Britain's prodigal years of crippling dock strikes which led to the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967, I warned, "If that happens here at our harbour I will declare this high treason. I will move against the strike leaders. Charges will be brought in court later. I will get the port going straight away. The Singapore dollar will never be devalued and I think the people of Singapore expect this of their government." I spotlighted the "selfishness of established labour." Cargo handled by the Port of Singapore Authority in 1967 increased by winning over the unions over 10 percent, but the number of workers employed did not go up because the extra work was all taken up by overtime. This was immoral at a time of high unemployment. I told the union delegates that we must rid ourselves of pernicious British-style trade union practices.
A very interesting book; of course, it's his side of the story.
But Sweden can still outlaw selective parts unloading by dockworkers, forcing an all-or-nothing strike, if it wanted to, and enforce such laws.
And I don't know why you'd call Singapore parasitic; they weren't leeching off anybody, other than the British early on.
( oh wait, no sarcasm at all - https://time.com/6238361/joe-biden-rail-strike-illegal/ )
The unions are allowed to strike because Tesla refuse to sign the collective agreement that regulates the use of strikes while the employees in return are guaranteed minimal wage, pensions and so on.
Tesla can sign this agreement any time they want to, but they're choosing this fight while the unions wants regulation. That's on them, not anyone else - and Musk is perfectly free to take his business elsewhere if he don't want to conform to Swedish customs.
The unions collective agreements in Sweden and pretty standardalized and include standard things like pension offsets etc. So not a big bruden for serious companies.
From a company/management point of view it is often something good in the end if in addition employees are union members (I’ve been in this situation myself as a manager in Swedish companies): Say you want to terminate someone, they will get union representation. There will be very little hassle and the process will go smoothly since everyone in the room knows the rules and when the employee gets upset their union representative can help them move forward without unnecessary hassel which would lead nowhere.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is because those in the US are so accustomed to the power dynamic between employer and employee being one of controller and controlled, respectively. That's pretty much all employment in the US.
If you can for a moment question that base assumption, and imagine a power dynamic in which both negotiation and normal operations is one of equals, then you may see how that dynamic would lead to different systems.