That's a very narrow view of the situation. It's not up for a small group of individuals to decide that for the whole society. Say they decide tmrw to not accept shipments from Israel. Why should a dock worker have disproportionate say in that?
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
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?
No they cannot be fired under this circumstance so long as the right procedures have been followed by the union and its members.