Legally that seems a bit crazy that shipping company workers can select what gets shipped based on their political beliefs.
Next the power utility company workers are going to refuse to give Tesla electricity
In a sense these unions do have a lot of power when all of their interests align. But because of the sheer number of people and diversity of their industries and the political capital they expend in performing these actions, they don't tend to act at this scale very often. You need to have fucked up pretty badly to have mobilised all of these people against you.
It sounds like what anti union people like to portray them as. A tax on employees and nepotism.
It's not a tax on employees, I consider it a quite cheap insurance.
You can shop around for insurance, you can't shop around for employers.
"It is crazy that they have an effective mechanism for ensuring good working conditions in their societies"
This isn't just some random dockworkers, this is Fellesforbundet, Norway's largest private union. Unions are usually democratic, with elected leaders.
The Israel example is absurdly weak, that has nothing to do with working conditions.
Solidarity strikes/actions aren't a new thing, they are well established things that have forced many other multinational companies to treat their Scandinavian workers better. Most of those companies, like McDonald's, eventually concede and start operating profitable ventures with good working conditions here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nae_Pasaran
> Nae Pasaran is a 2018 documentary directed by Felipe Bustos Sierra about a group of workers at a Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride, Scotland, who refused to work on Chilean Air Force parts from 1974-78 due to the atrocities carried out in Chile by the Pinochet dictatorship
It's only permissible in response to an active dispute and refusing to unload all shipments from Israel definitely wouldn't qualify.
Can the police union also refuse to protect Tesla property/workers? Or like the public transit union? Where do they draw the line in Sweden?
I've never heard of a system where workers can so selectively decide who to target. I've only heard of the "not go into work" type of strikes
No they cannot be fired under this circumstance so long as the right procedures have been followed by the union and its members.
Employers on their part have access to a similar tool in the form of lockout, where they bar employees from coming into work and stop paying their wages. An employer targeted by (legal) solidarity action can't fire their striking employees, but could respond with a lockout.
There's a provision that disallows strike action where it would harm public order, which would apply to the police union refusing to protect Tesla property.
Unless I am heavily misreading, “we organized a strike, and if you don’t join us, you are expelled from the union” sounds exactly like a union forcing its members to strike.
What other kind of “forced to strike” scenario were you imagining? Union leaders holding those refusing to strike at a gunpoint? Because other than extreme examples like this one, it sounds like a textbook version of forcing members to strike.
Most if not all organisations have standards of conduct that they expect their members to follow, and its not surprising that unions view strikebreaking ("scabbing") as being contrary to those standards.
But seeing as the whole point of unions is organised action, why would you want to be a member if you weren't interested in participating in that action?
Brother/Sister, a strike can in principle be done for any reason.
Sweden seems to have low regulation, no minimum wages so is a perfect place for an american company to take advantage, unless the peasants use their rights to strike then the billionaires are demanding regulations. As software developers we should do the same when we are asked to take part on building harfull shit, as an individual we have no power, if I refuse someone else will be paid to do it but as a union we could do some good and reduce the harm int he world.
Tesla is free to use other companies or methods to deliver, create their own delivery companies from scratch , deliver the cars with their rockets. I do not think they can cut off the power but there could be problems finding people fixing their electrical issues if they appear.
In theory, but it's not unprecedented for payment providers to refuse to process payments so they'd not be able to pay people to even get started (if they went that way)
Who gets to decide what is harmful and what is not?
Me? You?
Your proposal won't go anywhere because you won't agree with others on what is harmful and what is not.
Maybe in some groups we can achieve a consensus. Say 80% of developers at a company think that the new feature of addicting kids on some game mechanic is harmful?
I am not referring to the stupid culture war in USA, so when I suggest this I am not attacking your political opinions.
Who cares? The company will just get someone from the other 20% to develop it. Or contract it out.
What is your proposal for stopping a company from developing something you think is harmful? You can't very well complain that other developers have to agree with your opinions[1], after all.
[1] Whether something is harmful or not is simply your opinion. If that something is a fact, then there's probably a law against it, so there's no need to prevent other developers from developing it.
Cigarettes are harmful and are legal.
It is not an easy as you think, I worked at a small company in a emote team, there was proposed that we all need to install spying software on our computers so we can be better monitored. Everyone in the team refused and the bad stuff did not happen, we were not replaced with a new team. But if it was only one guy he could be replace but good luck replacing 80% of your developers like they are are some pre-made lego bricks you can swap out.
You might be right, maybe developers should instead work on proposing legislation for banning harmful stuff and keep unions focused on work conditions.
> I worked at a small company in a emote team, there was proposed that we all need to install spying software on our computers so we can be better monitored. Everyone in the team refused and the bad stuff did not happen, we were not replaced with a new team.
Isn't that different to what you asked for? The harmful stuff in this story was harmful to the workers. Unions protect workers.
You're asking that employees must form a union to protect consumers. Have you ever seen that happen? Unions are not primarily consumer-protection groups.
Once again, I reiterate that you are going to have trouble getting a union (or a bunch of them) all agreeing that their workers would strike if any worker is ever employed producing cigarettes (the example you gave).
The reason this is not going to happen, is because you aren't going to get enough developers to agree with your opinion on what is harmful and what is not.
> You might be right, maybe developers should instead work on proposing legislation for banning harmful stuff and keep unions focused on work conditions.
Give me just one single example that you think should be enshrined in law and currently isn't, and I'll show you how unworkable your proposal is.
Just one.
Feminist issues is a good example it has almost always been up to the women to fight for that, unions have been in the back seat on most of these issues until support was well above 50% in their ranks.
That's not what the poster I replied to was arguing - they were arguing for developers to all agree not to develop harmful (to the consumer) products.
That is not what unions do. Unions are not known for acting in the customers best interest. They are a workers collective, not a consumer advocacy group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Icelandic_women%27s_strik...
Elmo need to start paying attention.
The strike is about working contracts not about Elon dumb stuff, and before someone defends Elon I will inform you that Elon himself admitted he said some very dumb stuff.
I actually know a postal worker in the US who got fired ("resign or else type") for refusing to deliver political mail that he didn't agree with, so yeah in the US try this and get fired.
But there are plenty of examples of companies threatening to leave, or leaving a state due to unfavorable politics. Companies choose all the time where and with whom they do business.