Members and non-members work together at the same companies, and the collective agreements between the unions and the employer organizations apply to all employees, not just members.
"A key reason for the sympathy strikes is that Tesla brought in scabs which is a big no-no in Scandinavian labor markets."
Sounds like an attempt to prevent other people from being hired.
Re: setting a minimum salary -- suppose we set the minimum price of burgers at $100/burger. Do you think that would cause people to buy fewer burgers? I don't think "minimum salary kills jobs" is speculative; I think it should be the default hypothesis. Force the price of something to be high and people will purchase it less. Force the price of labor to be high and unemployment will increase. Especially for low-skilled immigrants whose main way to compete is willingness to work for low wages.
A race to the bottom, exploitative labour market is not what we want here in Sweden.
Preying on someone's desperation to work for lower wages than what collectively we think is fair is pure exploitation. The labour market in Sweden is quite free and mostly deregulated, the main pillar of the foundation for it being fair is for employers and employees to engage in negotiations, unions play a key role in regulating the labour market to set a minimum threshold.
You are just advocating for allowing exploitation of immigrants.
That's the position that you are taking with respect to migrants from developing countries. An "exploitative" job in the Swedish economy would be a big upgrade from their options back home, yet you still deny it to them out of a high-minded sense of "altruism".
I am an immigrant from a developing country, living in Sweden, gladly I've been here long enough to also be a citizen. I'm extremely glad there are provisions which did not allow employers to exploit me when I was hired, I'm glad I was paid in line with what natives/locals were.
There's no altruism in allowing exploitation of immigrants, it seems you are not considering that allowing it also creates a counterpoint that depresses salaries of locals since there's a pool of labour willing (and allowed to) to be paid less for the same skillset and competence, your prerogative is, ultimately, mostly beneficial to employers while leaving breadcrumbs to immigrants, and depressing local salaries.
Easy for you to say, given that you actually got a job. That's how these labor restrictions work: they're nice if you can find a job, but they create an underclass of people who can't find one.
No restrictions in the labour market will create lots of exploitative behaviour, it will depress wages, I simply don't understand how you do not understand this, even more since you were the one citing "microeconomics" further up in the thread.
You are advocating for labour exploitation, paying people less than what's fair due to their desperation, not based on their merits and a level playing field to all. You are actively advocating for this. Don't you see any reasons a society does not want to allow that to creep into the labour market?
Minimum wage laws encourage employers to trim the least productive workers from their payroll. The least productive workers are disproportionately the poorly educated, those suffering from health conditions, etc. Minimum wage laws hurt those who are least able to advocate for themselves.
"Exploitation" and "fairness" are a matter of opinion. There's no objective way to define that stuff.
(also, the sympathy strikers object to the hiring of other people _to do the strikers' tasks _, not hiring in general.)
> Force the price of labor to be high and unemployment will increase.
If you don't, there will be a race to the bottom and people won't have a liveable wage.
Besides, Tesla is claiming that their compensation is better than the the collective agreement's minimum, and if that's to be taken at face value, clearly the agreement's cost of labor isn't too high.
>(also, the sympathy strikers object to the hiring of other people _to do the strikers' tasks _, not hiring in general.)
A mafioso could tell you "We broke his legs to ensure that people stay quiet. It wouldn't normally happen. It's fine for him to talk to the cops. Just don't talk to the cops about us."
>If you don't, there will be a race to the bottom and people won't have a liveable wage.
People looking for jobs will prefer to accept a job that has a higher wage. So you could just as easily argue that there will be a race to the top, as businesses compete over workers until businesses can no longer make a profit.
The US economy has fewer unions than the Swedish economy, yet its median income is around 30% higher: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...
People in this thread are comparing Norway to Sweden. One way of interpreting the median income data I linked is, if Sweden adopted the sort of capitalist approach you see in the US or Switzerland, the increased economic dynamism would be the equivalent of discovering $1.5 trillion in oil wealth, from the perspective of the median worker.
I suggest reading up on basic microeconomics until you can explain concepts like "supply curve" or "demand curve". This book teaches you the approximate contents of an undergrad micro class in a way that's fun and entertaining: https://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Introduction-Economics-I-Micr... Then you'll have an idea of why the "race to the bottom" and "race to the top" scenarios aren't actually happening.
This is a non-sequitur and non-argument, there are many, many other differences between the labour market in Sweden, and the EU compared to the US to rely solely on that fact as a reason for higher median income.
> People in this thread are comparing Norway to Sweden. One way of interpreting the median income data I linked is, if Sweden adopted the sort of capitalist approach you see in the US or Switzerland, the increased economic dynamism would be the equivalent of discovering $1.5 trillion in oil wealth, from the perspective of the median worker.
There's nothing in what you shared that support this, at all. Sweden also ranks higher in economic freedom than the US [0].