Swedish painters trade union to stop all work with Tesla brand cars
malarna.nu
malarna.nu
Unions are strong here which in general is a good thing!
You can't also fire people just for willing to join or create a union!
This is not the U S of A. Were you can get fired for stuff which you have the right to do.
I hope the unions will win soon!
I my self joined the https://www.sverigesingenjorer.se/in-english/
It is not like this is a fact of life which is outside of tesla's control. All they need to do is agree on a collective agreement and their troubles go away.
Their refusal to even negotiate is the source of their problem. "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do" When in Sweden....
The range of negotiated outcomes that would be attractive to manufacturers would all involve pay cuts.
There’s no point engaging in negotiations unless the union can first accept that.
> "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do" When in Sweden....
But you can also choose where you want to go and that sounds like what Tesla is doing. They aren't forcing Swedish unions to do anything that Swedish unions don't want to do. And Swedish unions aren't making Telsa do something they don't want to do. Sounds like a win win for everyone.
If Tesla doesn’t want to put up an assembly line in Sweden because their management is too stupid and greedy to see the advantage of a unionized workforce, it’s their loss.
You’ll never see modern manufacturing companies willingly become a union shop, it’s not in their best interest.
The rare times it does happen, it’s always against the wishes of management.
And by wealthy countries, I don’t mean countries where a select few have all the money and power and the working man is struggling.
I would absolutely prefer to live in a country where my fellow man work for a “non-productive” factory in Sweden, or any other advanced European economy, than in the US.
And quite frankly, if management wants to exploit their workers, they can go fuck themselves.
Moreover, union membership is rapidly falling. Every OECD country except Spain and Belgium are losing union members faster than they are being added.
Unions don’t really make sense for employers, and typically don’t make sense for high skilled workers either.
While I’m sure that many low skilled workers prefer them, it’s the companies and higher skilled workers who decide where businesses operate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Sweden#... [2] ECONOMICS:MXCAP on trading view
My question to you. Would you rather drive a Swedish made car or one from Mexico?
The Tesla factory in germany has also big problems now...
Google the german meet industry were people who prepare meat are sleeping in tents in the forest...
That's... not how it works, in decent unions at least. In fact, in many sectors in Europe the unions will come out swinging only when layoffs are on the cards. And union membership is not necessarily tied to a job, often people remain union members as long as they stay in the same sector (some unions even allow non-sector members).
But if you get fired the union usually checks for you if you were fired in a correct way.
If you pay into a A-Kasa and a union you get more unemployed benefits.
So not sure what you mean that they don't do anything...
stop spreading your SD BS here...
I assume you’re referring to the RMT /deputy/ leader. And just one person, not plural
And it’s not a six figure salary. Just over six if you consider total comp
23 in the below list on 6 figure salaries (excluding the professional sport unions):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a759e1440f0b...
I was correcting your misinformation on Eddie Dempsey. Are you going to honestly claim you weren't attacking Eddie Dempsey, trying to call him out for living in housing he's legally entitled to?
I never denied there isn't a union leader who makes over 6 figures.
Which union leader makes over 6 figures salary and lives in council housing? Even so, why do you care so much?
Not sure if you're British too (OP and I are) but attacking union bosses is a thinly veiled attack on the Labour party, so in a way, it's a comment intended to incite.
And call me mad, but someone who owns £100k+ should not be living in council houses intended for people of limited means. It's disgusting and parasitic.
Again, I ask you to give us the name of a single big union boss who earns £100k+ base salary (you can't pay rent with your employer pension contributions) AND who currently lives in a council property.
I'll even be charitable and accept deputy leaders.
We'll see what Eddie does after the next time he votes himself a payrise.
You still seem to think that it's OK for someone on ~£70k per year salary to live in housing intended for the most vulnerable, though, which is a strange for position for someone of the left.
My understanding of the UK system is pretty limited, but I don't think it works that way.
That is, I thought the UK prioritizes housing assignment for the most vulnerable, but once you are in you are a secure tenant and - baring breaking your tenancy agreement - can stay there for the rest of your life, and even pass that tenancy on to a family member.
There is nothing in the law that say you must leave if you make too much, and I thought Thatcher pushed the idea that council housing should be transferred to the residents, as a way to promote home ownership. Isn't that why the UK has the Right to Buy for council housing?
If council housing were indeed only for the most vulnerable, why promote the idea that if you make enough money you can remove housing stock and force the council to build new housing?
Would you feel better if Dempsey buys out his council housing?
> which is a strange for position for someone of the left.
Why is that strange? I am on the left. Everyone should have access to basic housing as a secure tenant, no matter how much they make, just like everyone should have access to a government funded public library, health care, and education.
£70k/year salary does not sound like all that much to uproot, especially if you are friends with your neighbors, your kids love the local school, your parents live nearby, etc. Social ties are one reason you should not get kicked out of your housing simply because you exceed a certain income threshold.
However, my point is not that it's illegal, just that it's unethical.
Why do you want a legal way to move them out, even if that breaks their social support network?
Because I don't understand why you think there is any issue with him staying.
If there isn't enough council housing, raise taxes and buy/build more housing. Someone making 70K/year should be in a higher tax bracket so it's not like he's not contributing more to society.
Would you really say it is unethical for a rich man to check out a book from the public library, because he can afford to buy his own books?
In general, I think benefits should largely be means tested.
Your system is set up to encourage people in council housing to make enough money to be able to buy their home. With your zero-sum argument in mind, you must think this unethical as it takes council housing away from the council.
Your system does not appear to be set up with your ethics in mind, so I hope you can understand why it doesn't seem like something others should be bound by.
It's been eminently entertaining reading your responses lol. I used to live in the south and met many Tories who think and foam at the mouth just like you. Man, do not miss it at all.
Euro-area economies are stagnant or shrinking whilst US economy is churning onwards like a madman. They will buy all of our assets away over time unless we start seriously competing.
Sad, but this is the only choice now that we've chosen to participate in the global economy.
What we actually need to do is develop a political and economic language which values things people actually care about.
I very much agree with the Finish parent that we need to adapt our societies. It’s not just about economic standard of living, it’s about staying relevant.
In fact I would even go further: it’s an ethical question to me. I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.
Do you have concrete examples? I can imagine that if you're working on avionics Sweden might not be the best place, but otherwise it really doesn't seem to be lacking opportunities for a small country.
I’m interested in fundamental challenges around computing: programming languages, cloud platforms, operating systems, combinatorial optimization, database technology, machine learning and the like. Not many bleeding edge opportunities around that here.
We also have a work culture were effort and ability is not rewarded (which at least I associate with strong unions), but “playing politics” is. It’s very hard to stay motivated in a culture like that. I think this is an important part of the downward spiral.
To me that sounds like your typical large company. I've had a great time working at small startups but I've found that my job satisfaction pretty much scales with the inverse of company size (within limits, it seems 20-30 employees is the sweet-spot for me).
Yeah, for programming languages you should probably have been Danish and for operating systems the Finnish have had quite an impact. Both socially stable countries with dare I say pretty strong unions...
I'm guessing that their decision to move west had very little to do with the "stifling" unions and more to do with the increased opportunity for a skilled SWE over there. I would say that that increased opportunity has also very little to do with "stifling" unions and more to do with the huge single market that the US is. That huge single market allows companies to grow fast. The EU works hard to be a single market as well but we have language barriers, bigger legal differences and dare I say bigger cultural differences.
Also talking about Scandinavia, as tiny as it is population-wise, we've had a disproportionately large impact on the world in many different areas. Some factors that contribute to this, I believe, are our free education system and the social safety net that unions have played an important part upholding.
I am also a Swedish engineer and find that there are plenty of interesting and innovative companies to work for. As a software engineer it has typically been easy to find jobs that offer better compensation packages than what the union requires but I still see a union agreement as a positive thing if the company has it. To me it signals that they care about their employees. I also believe that the strong unions in Sweden have given us the (at least) five weeks of vacation, compared to the two in (the weakly unionized USA) and other quality of life and safety improvements.
> I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.
This is quite an ignorant view. Social stability is the foundation for society, and society is the foundation for innovation. Who will build what you innovate? Who will buy it? Who will service it? Who will innovate based on your innovation? If you did an honest comparison of the innovative output of socially stable countries with those that are not socially stable you would change your mind.
What I was referring to was the Nordic cultural focus on a certain kind of “equality”, often referred to as the law of Jante, which is very focused on holding capable independent-minded people back.
> Who will innovate based on your innovation?
This is an excellent question, but I would like to turn it around: Who’s innovation do you innovate on top of? The answer in my case is “Anglo-Saxons”. There is pretty much nothing in my tech stack from the EU. It’s just a black hole. Does that not concern you at all?
Then again maybe we have different tech stacks but mine typically includes: Linux (originally from Finland), ARM (from previously EU member UK), C++ (designed by a Dane) and Python (designed by a Dutch). That's the basis at least then there are other stuff as the need comes by.
As for social stability, I didn't intentionally misinterpret you. The kind of monetary equality that we traditionally have had in Sweden is good for social stability (the one without quotes I was talking about). That has changed during the last couple of decades and with increasing differences in income comes the increasing social problems we see.
OTOH I do agree that Jante can definitely be a negative factor when it comes to innovation.
youre so high on copium if you think that the economic model has anything to do with that...
if you were a world class talent, you'd be able to get a position for such a job under any economic system. youre just not.
What sort of interesting work is not possible in Sweden? I've worked in many tech hubs and am now in Stockholm; Oxford, London, Palo Alto, etc, and haven't noticed anything
Again, then you either need to invent your own currency and stop participating in the global economy or accept that Nordic welfare state will cease and we'll become akin to a soviet block economy in the next 50 yr timespan
There needs to be a balance between what the employers want and what employees want. Or else...
Unions are a way to reach balance.
Almost always, the unions ask for too much get bloated, then the employer outsources or offshores to get back to paying market wages.
It’s a pattern I’ve seen over and over again. For whatever reason, union agreements often turn out to be unstable arrangements.
Ask the average US citizen if it feels that way.
https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...
I wonder how rich Elon Musk would be on that scale? "Wow Elon, you have managed to consume goods for $50000! You are off the chart of richness. $50k, what a rich man!"
As for a better hypothesis as to why the US economy is so powerful: "The Prize" or "Guns, Germs and Steel".
Nice false dichotomy there.
You have many counter-examples of countries doing fine with a welfare state, but instead you cherry pick an example of one of the countries that you consider does "well" without one.
Flexibility in the economy only creates flexibility for those at the _very_ top. It creates potential instability for literally everybody else.
Collective agreements / collective bargaining are very common in europe, and their purpose is to establish a baseline of guarantees, compensation and generally workers rights.
Collective agreements are also incredibly common (in my eu country they cover like 98% of the workers).
The main reason for a company to avoid those is because of the intention to offer lower rights, worse pay, and less guarantees (job security / protection from discrimination etc).
These articles from Sweden give those concepts for granted because they usually are taken for granted in most Europe.
> what exactly is causing the safety issues they claim
This is in the third of those three paragraphs in the article:
> The collective agreements are negotiated on a sector-by-sector basis, and employees are guaranteed the wages and working conditions that are standard across the sector. This allows for companies to operate on a level playing field, while avoiding the risk of any one employer distorting competition in the sector by imposing poor conditions on their employees.
Tesla doesn’t allow the employees to work under the same conditions as dictated by the agreed-upon standards.
There's nothing vague about it given the context. They mean standard Swedish working conditions, like the deals they have (and everyone else has (literally 90% of workers)) everywhere else. The precise conditions of collective agreements vary somewhat but overall are pretty uniform per sector so everyone here knows what they're talking about. Unfortunately I can't find you an English article for what they're talking about but you can try your hand at translating this one [1] for some introductory information.
It seems reading comprehension isn't your forte. Here's the very first paragraph of the article you're accusing of not being very informative.
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions. Over a long period of time, we have attempted to discuss with Tesla the signing of a collective agreement, yet without success. Now we see no solution other than to take industrial action.
What exactly do you struggle to understand?
That said, yes, it doesn't sound like their on specific demands, at least currently. They want Tesla to "accept the swedish labour model."
"Decent and safe working conditions" is the union's general raisin d'etre. Their role, general goal, etc. It would be like Tesla saying they want to "profitably manufacture vehicles." Just a general description of what they do... and it's fine if they were to state it while describing their position.
They are describing the dispute as being about general principles afaict. That Tesla should accept the "swedish labour model" in general. They emphasize that it's an non-disruptive model and good for business.
This stuff is all context(that I don't have. Otherwise it's just a generic "unions or not" debate unrelated to Tesla, Sweden or 2023.
That said... US companies seem at aeas with these sorts of issues in Europe. In china, companies either stay out or bite the bullet and play by Chinese rules.
In Europe, especially around labour issues... American companies seem to always "rebel." It's as if local labour laws just aren't taken into prior account... and companies are caught surprised by the inevitable.
This doesn't really happen outside of Europe, nor for non-labour issues like environmental regs.
What is this? How/why?
That said... Unions are prevalent in sectors. My point is that Tesla knew this was coming. They are not a social media startup.
Premising an investment on "bugger that" is childish. Plan for it however you want, but leaving it out of the plan is silly.
Does Tesla have a chance/way of operating in Sweden without collective bargaining?
Sure it does. It just has to survive the “sympathy actions” from many of the other unions. As I understand it many of the actual Tesla employees refuse to go on strike.
The law in Sweden dictates that a company must give its employees at least 5 weeks of vacation of which at least four weeks consecutively some time during June, July and August.
This is really insidious as it looks like you'll be earning a lot (but you won't) and it's hard to sue yourself for only giving yourself two weeks of vacation.
Because summer vacations are part of the culture, and considered important. That rule allows families to take long holidays together, with other families, etc.
I realize that it's a foreign idea... but this is a foreign place.
Honestly, I think governments in some places (Sweden certainly) should just formalize these practices and make them easier and more transparent.
Work is getting international. There is value for Swedish workers and the economy here. Companies (even with good faith) can't deal with unlimited jurisdictions directly.
If it's formalized, it can be managed.
For some countries (Eg France) it would probably too hard or conflicting. For sweden... why not?
BTW, I’m a Swede with my own company looking for deals like this. Where did you find them? :)
The ad said prominently $100000/year which sounds pretty ok for an SWE salary in Sweden, but then if you read on you realized that you needed to start your own company and your company would be paid $100000/year which is quite a big difference. That's my main objection to these types of ads, if you don't already run your own company, chances are low you are familiar with the payroll tax and other costs that comes from running a company which will eat into what you may initially perceive as a good salary, only to end up working more for less.
In my experience as self-employed, it's not that hard to find Swedish companies that pays at least twice the hourly rate and then you can have much longer vacation and still earn more!
So, some average speed of worked might be MTM 90-100, but in Sweden is like 70, because studies show they get injured much less. And if you see videos of workers, they appear to work like in slow motion.
This might be one of things they have dispute about.
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions.
I’m Swedish and have been following this closely. I’ve yet to see anything that indicates either a) that Tesla employees do not have decent and safe working conditions or b) that Tesla employees themselves want a collective agreement with IF Metall. In fact Tesla has stated that their agreement is better for employees than the one the union IF Metall is trying to impose. There are also statements from Tesla mechanics in the press to the same effect, e.g. because they currently get stock options.
To me it’s quite obvious that this is about defending “the Swedish model”, a semi-socialist labour market system where compensation is decided primarily in negotiations between cartels of unions and cartels of large employers. (Individuals can negotiate their own salaries, but in practice only within this reference frame of collective bargaining.)
Of course it is. And what's wrong with that?
Mr. Freeze Peach doesn't seem to complain about that when it is China calling the shots. If he wants to play in Sweden, he can play by local rules.
There is nothing illegal about operating without a collective labour agreement in Sweden. For example, I’m born in Sweden and have worked here for 20+ years and I don’t think I’ve ever had an employer with a collective labor agreement. Among tech startups and smaller companies it’s quite rare, and when I’ve worked for larger companies I’ve incorporated and contracted, largely to get away from the negative effects of unions and job security: absurdly low pay.
An example is pension where companies not under collective agreement tend to not specify pension in contract rather just a blurb about "pension is to be compensated based on the currently applicable company policy". Basically allowing them to do whatever bait and switch they want later. Even if the benefits are good now there's no guarantee that they will stay that way. That's what a collective agreement is supposed to protect, that you can't go below that standard.
Scabs :) more seriously: let's say I have 100 employees; I underpay 90 of them, and overpay 10. When the union comes knocking, I roll out the 10 overpaid ones to whinge in the press. I'm not saying this is Tesla's case, just that all declarations (particularly from employers) have to be taken with a big pinch of salt.
That's not to say that unions are always right, some of them are undoubtedly power-hungry organizations more interested in survival than in their core mission (like all institutions). But typically, cries from employers about their agreements being "better" are just because they don't want to be tied to the guarantees that union agreements contain; nobody stops them from paying above what stated in the agreement anyway.
That's not the point - the point is they don't want to be strong-armed via collective bargaining. We have a market to enforce market rates; you don't need a union to do that.
Labour is the very definition of an un-free market. Employees are looking for the very means to survive, while employers (especially ones like Tesla) are just looking for ways to make themselves even richer than they already are.
A free market, in the sense of "market theory", requires (among several other conditions, very few of which apply here) that what is being negotiated over is a commodity. Neither side can have their very existence at stake, and what's being traded can be swapped with another provider's version of it for no (or very low) cost.
Your phrasing, e.g. "even richer than they already are" is really not helping. Anyone can start a business, even a tiny one. They take on risk. They need people to survive this risk. Those people want close to no risk, and a salary and other things. They get those not because of labour unions, but because these two types of people need each other.
"The free market of labor" is anything but.
Obviously, if you are a capital owner used to leverage your asymmetric power, this sucks. It probably sucks even if you're one of the few workers who happen to be able to be treated almost as peers (typically because of skill scarcity), since the union might concede something you enjoy in exchange for guarantees that you don't (think you) need. But for the workforce as a whole, collective bargaining is typically a net positive. Which is a big part of why Scandinavian countries have some of the highest quality of life scores in the world.
The German IG Metall is quite obviously teaming up with the Swedish IF Metall (does anyone else recognize the similarity in their names) to keep their power. It will be interesting to see how this will work out.
This is a very strange claim considering that the German media recently published articles on workplace accidents at Tesla in Grünheide. Some of them are government documents they can't share, but they have published many numbers.
Doesn't this strongly support what the left party and labor union are saying?
I, uh, wonder how you arrive to this conclusion considering all the Tesla employees striking for this exact purpose? Admittedly it's not the employees themselves manning the picket lines, but that's for safety reason as bosses at Tesla has threatened to fire people who participate in the strike.
* Ports will refuse to load Tesla cars
* Post and package delivery denied
* No office/factory cleaning
* Electricians won’t do work on office/factory/superchargers
And if I'm not mistaken, business for Tesla has been pretty big in Scandinavia. I've heard they've got a significant chunk of the market in Norway. No idea if Sweden is the same, but I think Elon's confrontational approach could really hurt Tesla.
So that people can get paid and produce goods and services for their society, obviously.
> If you're powerful enough to shut down a business, what's stopping you from getting whatever you want, regardless of whether it's reasonable?
Laws and contracts and as above the need for money and production, again, obviously.
I mean, the US could have Europe by the balls if it wants to. How much does it cost you all if we pull out of NATO? (I know Sweden is not in NATO.)
Also, the EU countries field, between them and the UK, multiple aircraft carriers, nuclear subs (hunter-killer and ICBM ones), modern militaries (albeit smaller in size than during the cold war) and robust industrial base for basically everything. Surey the US quiting wouldn't be great, but it wpuld be an even worse self inflicted wound than Brexit.
Unless Elon ends up POTUS (after all, in Demolition Man they passed an ammendment to allow Schwarzeneger to be elected, so ehy not?), the US won't do nothing over Tesla whatsoever, now or in the future.
Why would the USA want to remove one of its most effective soft power levers in the global scale? For Tesla? Lol.
For practical purposes, the US also cannot just start a trade war with Sweden; they would have to start it with _the EU_. (You'd think people would've learned this from Trump's nonsensical attempts to make trade deals with individual EU countries.)
Similar reason amazon simply doesn't operate here. Many other companies have learned the hard way: you simply don't fight the system, give fair contracts, and things work out okay.
If you plan on a "normal" employment model where workers get fired sometimes, redundancy is part of your MO, etc... don't locate to France.
If you plan on being union free, don't go to Sweden.
Walking in with declaration that "you can either have McDonald's or you can have your union model," that is so immature. I can't think of another aspect of business where this kind of thinking is acceptable.
Imagine doing this with building permits or whatnot.
This stuff really gets people worked up.
If Tesla doesn't want a Swedish location, they don't have to have one. There's nothing extreme or dysfunctional about Swedish labour norms. It's not France. Even if there were, that's Sweden. Tesla don't have to locate there.
Why are Tesla not prepare for this? It's not like they completely ignore permitting or environmental regs just because they're different from the US.
Tesla live by Chinese rules in Chin. That even includes the major task of making Elon shut the gob.
You want to operate internationally... everywhere is different. Not everywhere is suitable. Choose wisely.
If Tesla eats a major delay because they hadn't anticipated the inevitable... That's on them and it is bad management.
From what I've heard Starship had a lot more input from him personally, and isn't going as well as the Falcon 9 did.
Don't negotiate with unions.
Also, they're famous for being such huge failures in Sweden that the vast majority of workers are covered by them.
And look where it lead them... top 10 of most quality of life rankings.
I suspect he will rather outsource those parts of the company. That way he can claim to not have changed anything but things can just continue.
> The Torslanda Works (or Torslandaverken in Swedish), is one of the largest production facilities of Volvo Cars and is located in Torslanda on the island of Hisingen, about 12 km north west of Gothenburg city centre. The plant marked fifty years of operation on April 24, 2014.[1] under the motto "Increased capacity – for ever-higher quality."
Are we talking about workers here, or about general geopolitics?
Plus everything I've seen about Geely seems to indicate that they're quite hands-off, that's how the group became so successful. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
... dentists will split your procedure into three sessions
... the pothole on your street. .. it will be enlarged!
Thanks for the more informative link below!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/world/europe/sweden-tesla...
IMHO, good for them!
The rest of the world gripes about the current ascendancy of corporate combinations over labor... and the Swedish response is to observe that (all labor) is still bigger than (large corporation).
Fair bargains come from negotiations between entities with similar levels of power.
Often, workers in these jobs earn less than they should because that's the going rate in the market. They accept lower wages to make ends meet, since some income is better than none. If they ask for more pay, they risk being replaced. Here's how it happens:
If worker A requests a raise, they are readily replaced by worker B willing to work for the original salary. This pattern repeats with worker C and the cycle continues, mostly benefiting the employer.
The only way to break this cycle and potentially secure higher wages, is if workers A, B, and C work together to collectively negotiate with their employers. If one of them is willing to work for less, the leverage is lost.
It's nowhere near perfect, and unfortunately misused as well. But concentrating power solely with the employer can be far worse, leaving behind a society fuelled by greed, at the expense of a broken social fabric with crippling destitution.
Update: Edited for clarity
How can they justify painting some products, but not others as a "work action"? A work action would involve something to do with their terms or state of employment, or actually going on strike and refusing to paint any products.
This looks like a targeted coercion effort against a single brand.
That is how you become a member of the world top 10 countries for Quality of Life.
Power is good until it is actually used. At that point, it loses its power. From that point of view, this may be the beginning of the end for these Swedish unions.
The labour market in Sweden cannot exist without unions, the government does not meddle much in the market, it does not set even a minimum wage, it's all part of negotiations between employers and employees (represented by unions).
Unions are essential for the self-regulation of the labour market between its participants over here.
I'll always support unions, they are the only thing we have against corpos and their infinite abuse.
And how about the rest of the world blocking mail, services, etc. for Volvo and Polestar?
The workers don't want the union, they have better terms right now. They are not on strike. You may then say, well it's because they are afraid but in Sweden most employees are in a union agreed employment contract and it is very illegal to prevent employees from engaging with an union or go on strike like this.
The issue here is that the union wants in because that is how they make money and now they are becoming less relevant because they care more about themselves and their political power which is extensive in Sweden. They don't really care about the workers here in my experience. They exclude members based on political affiliations and make bad deals.
I hope Tesla do not give up this fight and just continues on because this is shit behavior from shit organisations. I like the idea of unions but in Sweden they have completely forgotten what their purpose is.
Everyone who downvotes, please explain who they are fighting for in this case? The Tesla workers are not on strike, they say openly to journalists that they have never had better terms. The people who actually need to be unionized (young people working in service jobs like restaurants) seldom are and is getting exploited on a daily basis in Sweden since there is no minimum wage.
Here is an article if you don't believe me:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vast/trots-strejken-teslas...
Also it's the largest political party if you count only the people in the unions.
And they are using the same promises that they will never full fill as the other right wing parties in Europe.
Its just that people are buying that BS they are telling :)
Next election's it will end like in DK ;)
Please explain who they are fighting for in this case? Not the workers because they aren't even on strike lol.
There are plenty of Tesla workers in Sweden that do not support the strike.
In Swedish though https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/tesla-strejken-och-varfor-m...
I think its time the interwebs also see that Unions are not all good, many work for themselves more than the workers that pay them.
One of the worst , from personal experience, was a modest monthly salary increase but instead we did not get overtime payed.
We did have to pay a higher fee to that mafia after that also. Assbags.
I’m sure Sweden would have liked to have held on to Volvo, but I guess their system didn’t work out so well on that front.
Volvo was not owned by Sweden nor did they close their operations in Sweden... so they did hold on to it?
Volvos are still being build in Sweden (among other locations).
Seriously?
As a Brit living in Sweden, it is indeed annoying, luckily Swedes tend to speak English better than some Brits. -- but I often find myself opening google translate on my iPhone.
For countries like Germany, where there are people who genuinely do not speak English (and I accidentally have interacted with while being there); it is evidently a greater need to be supported via Apple Translate there.
The translators unions probabaly
Apple One in sweden als does not have fitness+ for example.
Don't ask me why...
So I'm using google translate on my iphone...
Why are you doing this, admins? What are you afraid of?
Mr. Burns to Smithers after Homer accidently brought labor unions to India.
Shipping an assembled car around the world is not that cheap and fast.
Thats why the biggest car factory in the world is still in Germany.
But since all this the Union(s) are doing across Sweden and Norway they just have 4 options:
1. Pull out of Sweden
2. Sign the agreement
3. Use non-unionised workers from another country (which could join the union at any time)
4. Hire their workers through a unionised subcontractor.
Musk might be above the US, but he isn't above Sweden, especially not something so core to our values.
Im Swedish, and part of a union. However I've never worked for a Unionised company as it's quite uncommon within the tech sector. And since its a labourers market we're very well taken care of either way. I'm also born and raised in a ICE manufacturing city and know that unions are doing gods work for "replaceable people". A lot of "standard skillsets" within manufacturing are easily replaceable, but that doesn't mean salary should be a race to the bottom. They still provide value by doing their job, and that is what the unions protect.
[citation needed]
Just look at Klarna.
I'm dev and the company I work for has union contracts.
This has the nice bonus of me getting 5 days extra an year because we work 40h but we should not so we get AFK time.
I'm Finnish and if Swedish system is anything like ours, there is such thing as unionized/nonunionized company in Sweden. There are only companies that sign the sectorally bargained labor agreement and those who don't. Small companies with few workers don't have to sign anything, they just need to adhere to minimums in sectoral agreement to avoid any conflict.
US has very peculiar system where companies/workplaces must unionize individually to have workers representation. There can be one union per workplace if I understand it correctly.
This is a needlessly zero-sum interpretation. It ignores other externalities (e.g. Swedish consumers finding other ways to get their Teslas serviced, the Swedish government stepping in), and ignores the obvious fact that the Union and employer might come to a compromise agreement.
People tend to look at union actions as warfare, but Clausewitz is right here too: strikes are the continuation of salary negotiations by other means. The goal isn't (and can't be) "victory" in some kind of abstract idea, with good guys and bad guys. At the end of the day the two sides will decide on a pay/benefit/market structure that they both are happy with, because if that's not possible there's no reason for negotiating to begin with.