Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangus | Hacker News Reader

This is such a bullshit pro-corporation take.

Workers aren’t obligated to perform labor. They aren’t slaves.

Imagine another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers went on strike to stop it. This same dumb argument would apply.

If Tesla wants Swedish workers to work for them all they have to do is improve working conditions to the prevailing standard and hire a CEO who doesn’t spend most of his time being an asshole to other people on social media. Simple. Karma’s a bitch. Treat other people badly and expect people to return the favor.

Tesla’s profit per vehicle is well above industry standard, they can afford good wages.

View on HN

Unfortunately your perspective is not going to be popular with this audience. Especially this line:

>Workers aren’t obligated to perform labor. They aren’t slaves.

When companies cooperate with each other and lobby and enforce their own labor laws, it's just the free market.

When workers do the same thing, and are only asking for a fair piece of the pie, it's apparently a "hostage situation."

Are you really advocating that dock workers should have complete control over all foreign trade?

Why should workers be denied the right to use their leverage when we governments and corporations always have the full ability to use theirs?

Workers use leverage and they get condemned.

Companies and governments do it and they get praised for being paternal protectors.

If the suits who run the show don’t know how to unload a container ship that’s their problem.

I don't know how to answer your question without knowing who built the port.

Presumably the construction workers.

What are your thoughts on net neutrality? and how does that differ from a port? Should the ISP decide what they will carry or not?

ISPs block domains and address ranges connected to malware and spam all the time.

Are you really advocating that CEOs should have complete control over all trade?

No individual dockworker has "complete control", and the union only has the control its members collectively consent to.

If they're responsible for handling all of it, pretending that they're not already "in complete control" is disingenuous.

Also, business owners routinely pull the exact reverse, where they withhold or alter their services to extort other participants of the system to give them what they want. Why is it "good business" when the CEO does it but it's "crime" when the workers on the ground do it? Probably, cause it threatens many peoples fantasy that they can be powerful, rich, and in control of the labor one day if they play their cards right.

This question is nonsensical.

Should pilots have complete control over all planes in the air?

Are you really adovacting that a foreign CEo should rule the local laws.

Their country, threir rules or he can leave.

I am stronly pro unions as in Sweden, beacuse I worked there, and have seen it. They are not like the US unions. Around 70% of people in Sweden are members of unions for $15/month.

Sweden Tesla worker salary is 4k/month, with full health insurance, free kindergarten, free school, free college. In case they get ill, workers get 2 years of 80% salary, and rehabilitation.

While you have at will contrracts in the US, unions in Sweden have ensured 3 months notice. Unions also negotiate minumum annual raise and gives you annual raise at least equal to inflation.

Unemployment insurance is handled by unions, you must be a member - 1 year of 80% salary and additional year. If needed, new training is obtained for free.

Without a union agreement, Musk workers are slaves.

No serious brand operates without unions.

The workers of a country should definitely have complete control over all foreign trade. Solidarity strikes organised nationally across unions are just one of such mechanisms.

> Imagine another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers went on strike to stop it. This same dumb argument would apply.

Imagine if another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers get a cut so they have a financial interest in keeping the opium flowing. You outlaw opium and the dock workers strike grinding all commerce to a halt until you un-outlaw opium.

Monopolies are generally bad. It gives the monopolist nigh absolute power and absolute power will often be abused.

What are most labor unions but monopolies on labor? It would not be so bad if there are competing unions but often there is just one.

So corporations are allowed to be a monopoly (e.g., Google, Ticketmaster, Amazon) but workers don’t get the same privilege.

As soon as it’s workers benefiting from corruption we can’t tolerate it, but as long as it’s a corporation or government benefiting we let it slide.

It’s a double standard. If you’re going to break up a union you’d better break up Amazon.

It really feels like you're being just as hypocritical as the people you're attempting to call out. Why are you anti monopoly when it comes to Google, Ticketmaster, and Amazon, but suddenly ok with monopolies when it comes to unions?

Why can't we just agree that monopolies are bad in both cases?

What does Amazon have monopoly on? Don't downvote, answer!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com