Hacker News Reader

Comment by morpheuskafka | Hacker News Reader

It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties.

I can't stand Tesla/Musk but I would not be happy if this happened in my country. If state workers could simply refuse to deliver your mail, renew your drivers license, or let you into the airport because of a political reasons, it would no better than a dictatorship where the government itself did those things to suppress political enemies. You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business.

Could the poll workers refuse to accepts ballots for a candidate they have a "labor action" against?

View on HN

"It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined"

Maybe your concept of the law is not universal? It seems to be accepted behavior by swedish law, so it is within the rule of law.

We don't know what. The ruling hasn't been made yet.

Corruption, Mafia, cartel, etc. control of legal processes seem to be accepted behavior (or were in the past) in some countries. Would you say that that's within the rule of law?

In which country was corruption or alike "accepted behavior" by law?

For centuries, Russian bureaucrats were expected – completely officially and under the law – to earn their living by extracting money from members of the local population directly, instead of through taxation going into a state budget. This was known as kormlenie. To populations elsewhere, such a system might meet their local definition of corruption.

But then you can argue, that it is not corruption, but right of (primitive) taxation.

Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action.

Maybe if the postal services had not been privatised (and employees loosing a bunch of privileges) I'd be sympathetic. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.

> On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.

Infrastructure and communication with governments needs to be regulated and open to everyone, that is a basic freedom that has to be respected for a country to be free. If you have a road toll and refuse to service certain cars and thus efficiently putting them in a prison then I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation.

> I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation

You and I aren't Swedish. (EDIT: Nvm!) This is how the Swedish labor model has worked for decades. By all practical measures, it works.

This was a stupid fight to pick because it's unwinnable. If Tesla prevails in the courts, they will get hit harder by the political system. Driving a Tesla will become a political statement. I'm not sure if there is a good way to back down other than franchising Tesla's Swedish business to a local partner.

> You and I aren't Swedish

I am Swedish.

Stupid fight indeed, as it might inspire workers in other european countries (Norway, Germany) to do the same.

If Postnord is unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligations, then their contract should be dropped, and another company should be used instead. Right?

Or is there only one mail delivery service? Or is something else the problem?

What am I missing?

Swedish Law was that plates could only be delivered by government owned Postnord.

The courts just ruled that Tesla is temporarily exempted from this law until the case is settled.

Postnord also has many plates in their possession, and tesla can not legally sell or ship the cars they are registered to. The court has just ruled that Postnord can hold on to these plates until the case is settled

So it's privatized with statutory exclusivity?

Wow that's... Wow.

I take for granted that private parties are equal under the law.

Postnord is a 100% government owned company

> Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action.

So the government owns the company, but the employees are not government employees?

Everything I said still stands.

---

EDIT: Basic common sense says you can either be considered (1) a government organization with statutory exclusivity and legal responsibility (2) a private organization without statutory exclusivity or legal responsibility.

Sweden is letting Postnord have its cake and eat it too.

Yeah, I think it is whacky too.

The person you're talking to is mistaken, the use of Postnord is not defined in law, it's contractual. The Swedish government has a centrally negotiated contract with Postnord to do all of their deliveries, and Transportstyrelsen did not believe they were authorized to break that contract – even with the strike causing Postnord to not live up to their end. It makes sense to me that the court system was needed to decide that the contract in practice is void in situations like this.

* Largely government owned means 60% ownership by the Swedish government and 40% by the Danish government.

> You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business.

This is indeed the point of a strike, yes. Which is allowed (under certain conditions) by Swedish law, particularly when it comes to labor conflicts. If Tesla wants to conduct business in Sweden, it'll have to cooperate with Swedish laborers. Those have more power than in the USA, but Tesla can always go elsewhere if it really cannot stomach paying its workers equivalent wages as other companies in Sweden.

...or let you into the airport because of a political reasons

Well actually, on the subject of airports and nordic labour movements:

https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729

"The walkout is a political protest, permitted under collective agreements, and is not directed at employers or the current contract in the sector."

I guess they have to pay for it though (in docked salary). But yes it is strange to me too.

I dont know how you could do a walkout for delivering to a single customer.

Sorry this was a totally different thing, as an example to how Nordic labour movements may well be different to other parts of the world.

Security workers at Helsinki airport walked out because they are not happy with the current elected government in Finland, not due to actions of their employer. This is a political protest and it is allowed.

Not in scandinavia. It's how the labor market is organized and its working great. I don't remember how it is in Sweden, but the relationship between employees and employers, how they can negotiate, and what kind of means they can subject the other part to, is enshrined in law, and so strikes that looks like this one in Sweden can easily be lawful.

> It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties.

Whose law? Yours?

This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company.

EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.

This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough.

The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse.

I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.

Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider.

Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?

Should police be able to boycott calls from people they oppose?

> Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider.

You're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.

> Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?

But this isn't comparable. Nobody has a right to register their car when they want. It's economic harm being caused in a precedented manner. Ignorance of the history of a country's customs and laws doesn't exempt you from them.

In America, national security is the precedented equivalent. If a postal worker suspects something dangerous is being transmitted, they're absolutely allowed to use individual discretion to delay or even suspend delivery. This is loosely codified, but not to the level of an individual driver. In Sweden, labour disputes are similarly elevated in a way that is precedented.

> Nobody has a right to register their car when they want

Under Swedish law the Transport Agency is required to provide license plates.

You said judges aren't comparable, but labor is free to protest.

If you are the expert on Swedish custom and law, please explain the difference and where the line is drawn in Sweden.

Otherwise, it seems you are just making bold claims of personal opinion, and then calling everyone else ignorant.

You questions are bizarre. Of course judges and police should be able to strike. Usually critical areas like law, health, will not strike completely but have some employees keep working on critical tasks.

There is no arbitrariness in this, its fantasy of yours. There are common agreements between workers associations and employers, often different by profession. If these are not upheld by the parties involved, several tools of labor struggle are legal to be used, like striking an sympathy strikes. There is a legal and contractual frame underpinning all of this, which can also be challenged as tesla is doing. All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.

I dont see the distinction that you are drawing, and I'm not talking about a general or partial strike. I am talking about a targeted strike.

>All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.

I didn't stay anything about it being arbitrary/personal. Do you really think that Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases from organizations or companies?

Hypotheticals are irrelevant. Sweden has had this system for 75 years.

>Hypotheticals are irrelevant.

You don't get to decide what I think is relevant.

I dont think the current system in Sweden is relevant to the question of if tokai think Judges should be able to boycott cases.

The fact that the current system has existed for 75 years doesn't even mean anything about the postnord case (which hasnt been decided) or if the Swedish government is required to ensure equal accesses to government services or law.

We can make up hypotheticals to make anything look bad all day, doesn't make them likely to happen. A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something.

There's no discrimination happening here as Tesla is not a protected group that is covered by this. The right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined in Swedens constitution. The government is very hands off when it comes to labour disputes. PostNord is a government owned private company, their employees are not working for the state.

> A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something.

The postal service hasn't had a private operator for long, so this situation wasn't possible until recently.

Well we have precedent on this before it was a private operator, presumably it easier now that they're not even state employees. In the 90s we had a similar situation with Toys R Us and the SEKO union which Posten employees were part of joined the sympathy strike and stopped delivering mail to them.

Edit: Seems like Posten became a company the same year. So during that strike they may not have been state employees. Still a precedent though.

That's all beside the point.

What do you think tokai's position on judge strikes is?

Do you have a position on Judge strikes?

OR are you trying to talk about something else?

Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a danger in society. Dont know if that would apply to judges.

But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.

again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that.

The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute.

The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1.

My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met.

I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service

>Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?

This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions.

In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.

They’re 100 % government owned, but not by the Swedish government. That’s not so important though - what is important is that they’re operating commercially under the same regulation as numerous competitors that are not part-owned by the Swedish government[1]. Police, judges, and other actual government officials have much less freedom to strike.

[1]: Some owned by private investors, some owned by other governments. Welcome to the EU.

The law (including ECHR) protecting the private property in the mail that is being trespassed by the workers refusing to either deliver or give it back, and the law setting the rates and service standards for the post which was paid and not honored.

I think the workers at Tesla should unionize and get better treatment. I wouldn't want to work for one of Musk's companies. My concern is that if I lived in such a country, I'd be afraid that one day my city water would be disconnected or they'd refuse to renew my drivers license or passport, because I did something that those workers didn't like.

I'll admit to not researching the details of PostNord, but it is listed as a state-owned enterprise in Wikipedia and it fulfills Sweden's participation in the UPU. If it were purely private like FedEx, I wouldn't have the same argument--though in that case, my argument would be that the DMV needs to use another post if they know one is refusing to deliver.

> it fulfills Sweden's participation in the UPU

Is the UPU relevant to domestic deliveries?

The Swedish DMV has been ordered by the court to ensure Tesla can pick up their plates within seven days at the latest, so your argument at the end is sort of what’s happening here :)

> incompatible with the rule of law

This isn't a rule of law issue. If the courts issued a final ruling and the postal workers persisted, it would be.

Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of workers rights.

This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.

> This is entirely their right

I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use.

> A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people

This is counterproductive hyperbole.

> This is counterproductive hyperbole.

Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law."

Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.

> courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok."

No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature.

Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.

> But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature.

Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"?

I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__.

Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.

> This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims.

What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?

> Just the bad ones I assume?

I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice.

Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.

I think the courts agree with you: There are two cases, one against the government agency registering vehicles and this one against Postnord, a company co-owned by the governments of Denmark and Sweden. Both cases are still pending, but:

In the former case, the court order an injunction(?) forcing the government agency to release plates through other means than post. In the latter, the company Postnord was not immediately forced to act.

IANAL, but the subtle difference between “the government” and “government owned company” seems relevant.

As others have mentioned PostNord is owned jointly with the Danish government so it's not quite a government services, well the postal delivery is, but the mechanism that achieves it, PostNord, is not.

I think you are also missing something else here. The government could break contracts with PostNord and have some other company take on the responsibility for the service, but in the Swedish political climate this would be a terrible idea and the government would haemorrhage voters if it did this. Not to mention the fact that whatever company it got to take over the services would have unionised workers, who would, undoubtedly, continue the action against Tesla.

The government’s sovereignty does not come before the ability of the workers to unionize.

State workers are not discriminating against a person here. They’re discriminating against a huge company, one of the largest in the world.

And no comparing the actions of workers to a dictatorship is legitimately insane. A dictatorship has virtually no involvement of actual people and citizens. A workers union does.

You can not take away this right from workers without actually paving the path to a dictatorship or oligarchy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com