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?
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?
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.
>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?
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.
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.
The postal service hasn't had a private operator for long, so this situation wasn't possible until recently.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Under Swedish law the Transport Agency is required to provide license plates.
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're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
[1]: Some owned by private investors, some owned by other governments. Welcome to the EU.