Comment by emptysongglass | Hacker News Reader

Comment by emptysongglass | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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.

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 :)

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com