Swedish court rules against Tesla in dispute with postal service over deliveries
reuters.com
reuters.com
In Finland, Tesla repair shops follow the minimums stated in collective agreements and Musk probably don't even know about it. In Sweden it's issue for him.
Finland has generally applicable collective agreements where employers should observe at least the provisions of a national collective agreement considered representative in the relevant sector. When a collective agreement is nationwide and covers over 50% of the workforce in a relevant sector, it becomes generally applicable and binding even for companies that did not agree on the terms.
Pick your battles and all that.
The only realistic alternative is Tesla leaving Sweden. Prospective owners would have to import their cars from other countries. It's not hard to imagine that situation.
This is specifically the case with the Sweden Democrats. A big motivator for them is a) bashing greens, and b) being a better alternative for the working class than the Social Democrats. Siding with a foreign billionaire over "salt-of-the-earth" workers is not a winning move.
Vocal or not, no one will not be able to affect this semi-voluntary system unless they control bascially the entire economy. This is unlikely to ever be the case, until maybe some supranational EU agreement changes the rules entirely.
This is a huge deal in whole of Scandinavia. Today Finland unions joined in. The other day both Norway and Danish unions joined in. Before that, many other Swedish unions joined in.
This is Tesla versus the Scandinavian model rather.
The union can negotiate a better deal but it's not wild west at-will employment like in the US.
I am not an expert, but I think the union claims that this is one thing that is now worse for the Spotify employees who are laid off?
Meaning, sure, there is a degree of basic legal protection, but during layoffs, having a collective bargaining agreement will give you better conditions than that?
I haven't seen what they are actually asking for in the case of Tesla Sweden. In Germany the discussion is mostly related to wages, safety/accidents and shift planning.
This is an example of something they want to fix.
Who knows which change in the wind would make Musk change his opinion and make conditions worse (see "I'm a free speech absolutist (until I'm not, and I shut up every voice opposing me)".
With a collective agreement, he can throw as many tantrums he wants and the workers will be protected.
> "It's about the Swedish collective agreement model, and there is a consensus on it, both politically and between the parties in the labour market, Seko's president Gabriella Lavecchia told Reuters by email.
And yet this is not a legal obligation, as far as I understand, and Tesla is acting lawfully. So the model seems to be that there are unwritten rules and that the whole country is allowed to club you into submission if you don't follow them.
At this point it seems that at least some form of legal obligation (you give an example) would clarify what is understood to be compulsory... Transparent rule of law is also a model for a good reason.
From the outside it's a little odd (at least to me) that the Swedes seem adamant that Tesla must accept a collective agreement and also that there is no need to make that the law. That's the peculiarity, IMHO.
The fact that the whole country collectively agrees gives the workers far more power.
Treated badly? Go work for a competitor. That’s how you put pressure on companies to treat staff better.
A society cannot rely on a business whose sole motivation is profitability to provide power to what they view as a liability, not an asset.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average...
Keep in mind that there was a massive rise in C-level and especially CEO compensation compared to most other wages. Arguably this can be traced back to a specific book being rather popular among wealthy investors and entrepreneurs that argued CEOs are underpaid, which many CEOs agreed with and convinced the investors to also agree with. But this does nothing for the wages of anyone outside this group because C-level compensation is orders of magnitude removed from that of anyone lower in the ladder.
The US has the 3rd highest median wages, and Sweden has the 14th highest median wage.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
It's up to the company to fulfil its mutually-agreed terms of contract to those employees. Which in most cases means giving them the dignity and security of a monthly paycheque.
In a free market economy (that isn't overly constrained by government and unions), employees can gain all the "power" they like by starting a company of their own, and setting whatever rules they like.
If you're seeking "power" without taking responsbility (i.e. running your own compnany), sounds like you want to indulge in politics, as opposed to a good-faith employee-employer relationship.
- Libertarians overlook all the problems with markets that Adam Smith identified. It's as though they never read the second half of the book.
- Libertarians overlook how existing players raise barriers to entry for existing markets.
- Libertarians overlook the collusion between market players and government to share power and wealth between both.
- Libertarians make many, many, many assumptions that are demonstrably false.
At this point all we can assume is libertarians know all this, yet keep advocating for libertarianism because it is they who seek the power and the wealth. That is to say, the libertarians are the bad guys, or, they're the stupid guys.
Everything has a simple solution until humans get complicated.
There's no market incentive for companies to "treat staff better" (which is really an oversimplification when it comes to basic things like following workplace safety laws, providing paid medical leave and health insurance, not cheap window dressing like foosball machines and free energy drinks) beyond the minimum you can get away with. Payroll is one of the biggest cost factors in most businesses if not the biggest. That means companies are always incentivized to cut labor costs where possible. This is why you say mass layoffs followed by share price increases.
If you really want "the market" to fix this problem, ban individual ownership of corporations and require all businesses to act as worker cooperatives. This gives every worker equal power in whichever business they decide to join and gives the owners an incentive to treat workers better because the workers are the owners. You could also do this incrementally by offering public grants to creating cooperatives or turning existing corporations into cooperatives (e.g. by creating a subsidized program to allow workers to "buy out" a bankrupt employer).
We don't want a top-down autocratic state so why should we accept a top-down autocratic corporation ruled by a single owner or a non-working board that is only interested in the resale value of the company, not its long-term profitability or sustainability?
Consider the complexity of a vending machine vs. a can where people can leave their payments... Any society probably has places where you need the former, and places where you can get away with the latter, but I prefer those societies where most of the places in between are on the can end of the spectrum.
Many cultures have bribery as an unwritten rule and custom. Every official you run across is expecting a small bribe.
Should companies adopt that culture as well?
Coiuntries are sovereign. Foreigners don't decide, that's a key outcome of the thirty years' war. So if you go to X, the polite, proper, non-imperialist thing is to follow accepted custom.
Of course, that raises the question of what "accepted custom" means. It's not clear to me that bribing is really accepted in the countries where it's a custom, widely accepted, rather than being something people do reluctantly.
For example: Will you use oil from Saudi Arabia for your business? You could refrain because so much of the payment gets sidetracked to those 4000 princes, or because refraining brakes the climate changes a little bit, or even both.
The list goes on. There's much that's bad in the world.
Deciding to be principled about bribes and morally flexible about the rest seems… okay to me. Not particularly bad.
The only reason international firms are sometimes a little circumspect about that is because they also operate in home countries where bribery even in foreign countries is often against the socially enforced (written, in this case, but what is important is the enforced part, not written vs. unwritten) rules and customs.
E.g., https://www.trade.gov/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act
You mean like rent and monopoly seeking and corporations try to buy politicians and eliminate competitors so they can force consumers into submission?
Looks like a case of using the power you have, like corporations do. Why do you take a dim view of collective action when capitalism is a system that is slanted toward rich corporations?
Also Musk here is typically full of shit: he makes various libertarian noises but Sweden's system is largely untouched by government, it's an understanding between larger corporations and workers (unions). Sweden even got an opt out from EU minimum wage laws to preserve this understanding. Musk should be rejoicing the unfettered capitalism, but in reality he just wants everything his own way, and thinks he can get it.
Businesses and unions are better at knowing the needs of companies and people than what any government is.
Not everything has to be achieved through laws.
In Sweden we generally prefer to avoid laws whenever possible, deferring to best practices, common sense and business agreements.
That’s a much much nicer model than what we now get from eg EU where we get micro-level law making that deals with everything and more
The level of reactions against Tesla does not make the system look 'nicer' than others: Maybe effective but actually quite brutal.
It’s up to the companies and unions to handle.
When Tesla has refused that for 5 years + have a global policy to refuse, then they are not handling it, which makes companies and unions react.
To be clear: Companies in Sweden largely prefer this model over one governed by law.
Not relying on laws like this allows for more adaptability to local conditions or preferences, if the system allows this, while also having mechanisms for enforcement when a company has simply decided "we don't do business that way, and we don't care if that runs counter to the local norms".
It's not supposed to be nice. Swedish labour has understood a simple reality, you don't fight on your opponents terms. Elon Musk has a competitive advantage at hiring lawyers and buying politicians. So they pick the battle where they can actually win, collectively on the factory floor.
And just like tesla have the right to refuse signing, the people of sweden has the right to strike.
You went from calling this a bit “odd” and “a peculiarity” to “actually quite brutal” in the span of two comments. Jesus Christ the level of JAQing off in these Tesla threads from “the outside” (I wonder where) is insane.
It's simple. Above a certain size, you either get an agreement or no one will do business with you.
Put this way, it should tickle every libertarian mind. Free actors operating in an open market.
I think I would've agreed with this sentiment in the past.
However, the last 7-8 years in the US have shown that (at least in politics) rules need to be spelled out. We had a bunch of informal agreements of what people in certain positions should do or not do, but as we have seen someone will eventually come around and look to test the limits.
It looks like Elon Musk is looking to test the limits of business expectations in Sweden. I hope Sweden fares better than the US did when the political expectations were being challenged.
People coming round to test the limits is fine, the problem is that in the US parts of the ruling class has decided the (short term) benefits of tolerating severe transgression to those limits is worth it, in effect simply removing the limits.
The problem is simply that limits don't work if there is no the willingness by the people in power to enforce them, and this regardless of if them are informal or formalised limits. Many things things Trump did were simply illegal, but since Congress didn't impeach for these crimes they just become "controversial actions".
This isn't about some sort of grandiose libertarian stand. Whether this behavior by Tesla is influenced by Musk or not, it perfectly matches his attitude to workers' rights, consumer protection laws and so on. At one point he explicitly stated that the US Democrat party was being controlled by unions and class action lawyers. Contrast this with Musk's excuses for censoring Twitter in Turkey when the Turkish government threatened to block Twitter. He doesn't stand up to "bullies" or "authoritarians", he just doesn't like being told what he can or can't do by those he sees as beneath him (e.g. workers insisting on adherence to workplace safety laws or industry standard compensation schemes).
PostNord employees could not just decide to stop sending parcels to a company without it being part of a directed strike.
But yes, this is a solidarity strike and should be described as such to avoid confusion or ambiguity. It's interesting to see this play out as solidarity strikes are explicitly forbidden by law in my country (Germany) and while strikes and unions are granted many legal protections (e.g. a company under strike is not allowed to hire temporary strike breakers to substitute the striking workers, though they can use their existing non-striking workers), the law also explicitly restricts strikes to the company the workers are employed by. This is presumably meant to "tame" unions and prevent larger organized action, solidarity strikes or even a general strike (which would not be placing demands on the employer but e.g. the government).
Not to say that this kind of decision tends to be non-biding and decided by vote. So all the influences the representatives have is deciding what vote to call; it's the workers casting the votes and deciding to follow them.
Saying the workers are doing it is more than fair.
This was decided by Seko's union board, the union that covers most PostNord and other delivery companies employees
> PostNord says it can't force it's workers to do something
It is illegal to prevent a strike, yes
> So if it's not the workers decision it's PostNord's decision and that is very different
It's the unions decision
https://www-seko-se.translate.goog/press-och-aktuellt/nyhete...
https://www.seko.se/siteassets/pdf-seko.se/avtal/konflikt/fa...
Stop thinking about Nordic unions as a boogeyman, a mafia, or whatever other "oppressive" figure you want to make them out to be, the way unions work here is different than what you are probably used to. It's a cornerstone on how the labour market functions in the Nordics...
That's a strange way of putting it. Is the us federal government notification not "forcing" anyone to pay taxes, or not smoke weed, because the us is a democracy and therefore it's "collective action"?
Wat? In a discussion about if someone is being forced to take an action, consider not overloading the string "forced" with several meanings.
Of course you are free to break the strike or whatever feels right for you. But it might not be compatible with membership in the union, so they may well exercise their right to not keep you around as a member if you are actively trying to sabotage their work.
I suggest learning more about the Swedish model before spouting opinions on how things work here, you don't understand the system but feels entitled to argue on your assumptions.
Because Seko could have a vote to deliver to Tesla if they wanted, but ultimately the Unions are on the employees side so we're okay with their decisions.
This is inevitably going to turn into a quibble about whether representation and/or the electoral college constitutes "true" democracy, so I'm going to head that off by amending my previous comment to be at the state level (rather than the federal level). There's several states that had ballot measures on tax increases and/or marijuana legalization, and failed, for example:
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Marijuana_Legalization,_Prop...
https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Proposition_C,_Medical_Mari...
https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Initiative,_Questio...
In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.
Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost. You could leave your US citizenship too, I guess, by moving. But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?
Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost", otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect, rather than hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers.
>But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?
Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not. I think taxes are a net positive for everyone in society, but I'm under no illusions that everyone's forced to pay it.
It really is! To leave a union you just leave. You'll miss out on some perks like topping up your unemployment insurance though.
> Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not.
You can get most of the perks without being a member, because membership is anonymous within companies and unions have argued that everyone receives the benefits due to this! So you can have most of the perks of a union without paying "taxes", but I think it's fair to chip into the pot.
Tesla is doing exactly this. It was the first thing they did. (The exact amount however is not public.)
It's called "breaking the strike" and has been used for over a century. It's par for the game and every union trains to expects it.
If you're a member of a union and the union says please don't do X, and you're aligned with the union, then you will be happy to not do X. This isn't a forceful action nor is it the workers decision, it's this greyish thing between the black and white. The members of the union could have a vote and change direction to do X if they wanted, but why would workers defend a company trying to get around a model that's resulted in one of the best working environments in the world?
Of course, postnord is free to not accept strike breakers.
It is not PostNord's decision. Striking is a constituional right in Sweden and it would be illegal for PostNord to prevent it.
https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/zEpyow/arbeiderpartiet-hasteinn... (in Norwegian).
Interestingly that's not quite what's happening either. The workers in question are not in a union. IF Metall is the union being supported, and merely wants to represent them (more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market).
Everyone is just nuts here. Tesla needs to just cut a deal here, but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption, all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything is just batshit.
Walmart famously crashed and burned in Germany, for example, because they treated the German unions like uppity communists.
For many reasons, the US has a model which is not cooperative but built on bitter enmity. This is repeated throughout the nation with e.g. cars vs bikes.
We do not have that here. This is Musk bringing all his prejudice to a bunch of countries he doesn't understand the norms and culture of.
> Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden.
Unionization rates differ significantly across European countries. While the unionization rate in the Sweden is quite high at 65.2% (as of 2019), it is much lower in Germany at 16.3% and even lower in France at 8.9%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356735/labor-unions-mos...
As for strikes in particular: France doesn't require a union vote to engage in a strike to do so with far-reaching protections (2 employees fighting for an employment-related change seem to suffice from my cursory reading), so the French can strike without needing to be unionized. And boy, do they strike...
The Swedish almost never go on strikes, with very few exceptions.
But... Tesla never even got that far. They just hired some people who apparently wanted the jobs? No one got fired or threatened, no bribes are alleged. It really seems like IF Metall fired first, no?
I'm puzzled. Do you think when he flew in workers from other countries that this was not a strikebreaking tactic or are you saying that this did not happen?
This is pretty much a school book example how labor conflicts go.
The next steps of the conflict are also expected and known well in advance. The only problem is that nobody seems to be willing to inform their higher ups at Tesla what is happening.
Tesla complies with the country's laws, no?
Expecting to run a company against the norms in a culture that so heavily leans on norms is bound to create conflict, which is what we're seeing here.
A much better way is to have the parties play nice with each other, build trust, and negotiate as equals. This allows for much better and more detailed agreements, for quicker reactions if market conditions changes, and for more flexibility within each economic sector. The fact that the Nordic countries operate in such a way no doubt contributes to these countries both having great standards of living, and being among the best in the world to start and run businesses in.
Tesla doesn't play nice. They don't build trust, and they don't try to negotiate as equals.
True, it is not illegal. It doesn't need to be. We have other ways to keep hostile actors from misbehaving.
Strikes are one of those ways.
This system has worked well for a hundred years with Sweden ranking highly across most metrics for work satisfaction, happiness, etc... however every now and then an American company comes over and tries to challenge it. These companies get sympathy striked into the ground, sign a collective agreement, and live happily ever after.
It has been like this in Sweden since 1938 (if I remember correctly), and it is unlikely that any American company will be allowed to come in and change that order. I think the last one that tried and failed was Amazon, and before that Toys R Us.
This was an interesting experience for me during COVID, where lots of other countries put lots of rules/laws in place, while Sweden just had "recommendations" (and lax ones at that). The way I understood it, it would have been even incredibly difficult/legally impossible for the government to impose some of the same restrictions as in other countries.
It's actually fascinating how well the Swedish society functions without these laws.
Then again, so are the unions.
Tesla just chose the most expensive way possible to solve the matter. That's well within their rights, of course.
I had no idea that unions could operate like this. I thought unions were tools to gain workers leverage against their employers, which I obviously support. I find this cartel action repulsive and I don't see how it could be done here in the US without violating anti trust.
Out of interest, how are the unions trying to cut in? And what exactly are they "cutting in"?
My God, so many people have been taught to have themselves. It's just sad at this point.
> but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption
What is the economic disruption? There's no "economic disruption" because of Tesla in Sweden, it's negligible for the overall Swedish economy, stop that...
Tesla fucked around, now it's finding out.
Some members of the Tesla servicing stations are members of a union but the numbers aren't public because an employer cannot ask who is in a union
> IF Metall is the union being supported and merely wants to represent them
Yes, IF Metall is the largest union for that type of work in Sweden. They do represent some employees.
> more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market
Correct, no-one wants this because the entire labour system is built around collective agreements. Allowing companies to break these rules is bad.
> Tesla needs to just cut a deal here
Yep, or leave! Both works well, the only option that's not viable is to be allowed to break the Nordic/Swedish working model
> all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers
Some are represented
> who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything
Again, Unions represent employees and all members of the company including non-union members can strike because it's illegal to ask or identify who is or isn't in a Union. Which is why this number of non-Union members is mostly made up rubbish by pro-Tesla sites, the number is unknown.
How exactly is this done? Do they refuse to accept the license plates when the Swedish Transport Agency wants to drop them off? Or do they accept the plates, but refuse to deliver them? The former would be more or less ok, but the latter would amount to theft (taking the property of someone else and refusing to give it to them). I don't agree with Tesla's anti-union practices, just curious...
So it’s all about the receiver, and it’s not the only reason one can have to refuse to deliver, in other cases safety and work environment has been cited.
I’m not sure what happens with the mail though, if it’s sent back to the sender or put in piles
I imagine they're just thrown into the corner of a warehouse somewhere.
No. You cannot waltz into a postal center, say "oh, that there stuff is mine" and then leave with it.
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are combined the 3rd biggest market for Tesla. During some months we even edge out China temporarily becoming Tesla's 2nd biggest market.
The way our unions are being portrayed by Americans is ridiculous. Even pro-union Americans are making our unions sound far more aggressive and subversive than they actually are. A "blockade" just means no unionized workers and truck drivers want to offload and transport your products and supplies. It doesn't mean a literal blockade.
Americans policymakers believe in freedom of association only when it suits them.
Its cool for Google or banks to close all your accounts without any reason, and make your life impossible.
Its wrong for all unions/workers to refuse to work with Google and make their business impossible.
They both feel weird for roughly the same reasons: arbitrary decisions instead of laws dictate which behavior is tolerated for which group of people. In both cases the rights of individuals seem like they’re subject to the whims of other groups of people, instead of “liberty and justice for all.”
You're free to go to a court and fight against a strike organized by a union. If the court decides the strike is unlawful, the union will have to pay and stop striking.
Strikes and unions are not as arbitrary as it might seem.
Will Americans support laws to encode that Google or banks can't do that? I don't think so. You'd think it could be a bipartisan slam dunk, but, hey!
> where informal agreements dictate which businesses are allowed to operate.
They're not informal. They're part of Swedish law and the Swedish economic system. Tesla is attempting to act like a not-Swedish company in Sweden and is reaping what they've sown.
You say that "laws dictate"--sure, and the Swedish system delegates the particulars to the employer/union interaction much as, for example, the United States delegates to the regulatory regime. Unions can agree to pretty wide-ranging outcomes in Sweden. They, collectively, are refusing to do that.
In the US, the postal service is the OG government service - the power of Congress to create post offices is explicitly called out in the Constitution when it was signed.
Further, the US postal service has a mandate to provide mail access to every residential address - even if’s some remote island in Alaska.
I think the idea that the government can just throw up its hands when faced with a private labor strike, and say “Nothing we can do” is just baffling to us in the US.
If employees are being abused, let them ask for their rights.
1. to force the government to allow Tesla to pick up license plates directly from them rather than using PostNord.
2. to force PostNord to deliver license plates.
Preliminary rulings are for Tesla on #1 and against Tesla on #2. That seems right to me.
Lucky for Musk that he picked a Finnish supplier for the Cybertruck steel…
But only regarding stuff exported to Sweden.
Tesla in Finland already follows the agreements agreed by the unions and the employer representative in the so-called kolmikanta. Because it's the law. Sweden has more loose laws there.
Finland had a devastating and bloody civil war with whites and reds and a somewhat different history than Sweden regarding the labor market.
IIRC some Finnish union people have tried to export labor union concepts to say China but I've heard that labor activists are persecuted there.
https://efe.com/en/economy/2023-12-07/finnish-union-will-be-...
I don't think Tesla's will be as popular in the future. They've greatly damaged their brand through these actions already.
This headline is out of context. From what I read, postal workers striking said that Tesla should not be allowed to collect plates themselves because it's a job of union workers. Tesla went to court and got an early judgement (that they can collect) while the case goes on. Don't really understand if they really went to courts to force postal workers to deliver and I think it's unlikely as the law is pretty clear.
The larger context is Gigafactory in Berlin. The workers in nordic region are trying to encourage them to form a union. This strike does not really hurt Tesla that much, but if there is a strike in berlin, they would not be able to manufacture any car for the region. This also explains tesla's stance. They cave here, and will have to cave in Berlin too.
The key player in this regard is IG Metall, the one most aggressively pushing workers to unionize on the entire continent.
What I said and more can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/d9317830-3b1d-4c03-9a8e-bb2073a84... Good context, but FT too reckons that tesla should accept the union and CBA, so take it as you will.
Americans don't get it. We Scandinavians are not built on a cultural foundation which circles around creating our own safety nets.
We are not lucky. We worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
Same thing goes for Wolt or Uber etc. They are not welcome here if they can't treat workers by their unions commitments.
Fuck the money and hail solidarity.
In Sweden we have no laws for minimum wages and many worker rights are instead regulated through union-employer agreements.
Simply put, when it comes to your work environment, healthcare, housing, ability to put food on the table and access essential services like water, electricity, internet etc. - there are systems in place to reduce risk and "surprises", ensure your survival and equip you with the ability to tackle general "stuff of life". That's (in part) also why we pay very high taxes.
Most families would provide for their own if it was required, but it's not a scenario most people ever need to consider, even as a backup, as bad luck alone can't put you in that situation, you'd need to actively seek it out.
No, you are lucky, because your ancestors worked hard for it for hundreds of years.
The country is not "lucky" because it happened upon a culture, it worked towards it.
The individual is lucky to be born bearing the fruits of that hard work. But that puts a duty on the individuals not to squander or destroy these hard won triumphs.
Does strong union actually result in better pay? If you compare the average software salary from the US to Sweden, it seems like it's doing the opposite, no?
Try to make an effort yourself.
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/teslamedarbetare-ingen-har-koll-pa...
I could make double my salary if I accepted offers from US companies, but I've chosen to live in Europe instead.
Money is a mean to something, ultimately. I actually believe that the labor protections and social safety net provided in European countries typically makes for a healthier society.
If you don't want to negotiate that contract, the majority of the market will come together and refuse doing business with you until you do.
The unions negotiate for "All workers" under some kind of umbrella terms that has only sometimes specific prescriptions towards individual companies but always towards industries as a whole. They can dictate things like medical, vision, dental, sometimes day care. But they can also dictate things like work hours, safety, etc.
That all sounds gravy, but what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law, so they can't. But what if that's just how the people in the company, and people within that company want to work. That's how Tesla works. When you are getting of job at Tesla, you know exactly that you are signing up for long work hours. It's a company with everyone putting in 70 hour weeks for around 2 years, and springboard into another startup at a higher role, or more cushy FANG.
To give another example from another industry that would not work is the oil fields. We have the OCAW union here in the US but get like 1/4 of what the non-union jobs get. Because OCAW dictates work hours, and a salary but not time to rig. the non-unionized guys go out and work for 18 hours straight, sleep on a the rig for a bit, and get back to work. Again, not allowed under union contract, but if you do that for a couple days and make a bunch of money. Because we have worker pay, OSHA, etc. There is no need for unions here because the minimum labor standards for overtime pay and safety are set by federal standards not the "Union".
"Collective Bargaining" has lost it's sense of "Collective" at the scale it has grown. True collective bargaining has always been by the individuals themselves. Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions that they need to implement to be compliant is legalease non-sense.
Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.
If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.
Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.
> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions
Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.
You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.
There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.
The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.
But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.
Worth noting that Sweden has a worse homelessness rate than the US, at 36/10k compared to 17.5/10k in the US[0]. Sweden's homelessness rate appears to be about on par with South Africa's.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_ho...
This sounds ridiculous.
They work for fractions and they are necessary for the company.
If a worker knows an owner is desperate, the worker can win. The opposite is true too.
I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality that might be necessary in local disputes but certainly isn't as good as having everyone's incentives aligned. What I think Musk might be missing in this context is that European unions have a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.
What is a good example?
the claim was that unions, today, disseminate best practices that make up for lack of companies training their employees to be able to do their jobs well, which I'm skeptical about.
This is the first time I've seen someone mention this as a good thing.
Most of the time its mentioned in outdated regulations dragging out the economic output of Europe in favor of old people who don't want to use new technology. I think everyone who has worked in physical product company has heard a story about how European unions are slow and expensive which is why XYZ is done somewhere else.
I actually like unions, I just found it silly to think that the guild system and the laws that resulted from union's corrupting the government are good things.
Ultimately, I think a qualified support of unions in principle is going to bring pro-union folks towards the center much more effectively than a denouncement.
In America, yes. Painting Scandinavian unions as fomenting an us-vs-them mentality is more misunderstanding from people who don't understand what it's like to live and work here.
Unions here know that if the companies doesn’t prosper, so won’t the people employed by it.
So the industry and the unions negotiate agreements that ensures we have the strongest companies with the healthiest workers.
Sure, one side represents the company leadership and the other the workers, but they have a shared goal and collaborate on that, knowing that government legislation would be worse for everyone and not be agile and adaptable to the needs of different industries.
Nordic unions are fundamentally different from for example the French, which are more like the American. Both organize workers, but from completely different perspectives and completely different roles in their respective economic systems.
None of them have much to do with the guild systems of old. Some countries still have the guild systems intact.
I guess he knows that and I guess that is the real reason he dislikes them.
Looking at this from a distance and without picking sides, I can see both sides have a point and a bigger agenda. The actual conflict seems like it is a sideshow to this bigger agenda.
In Scandinavia the unions are historically very strong. Strong as in they are mostly socialist leaning countries where the socialists have set policies for decades backed by very strong unions that dictate how companies operate. Not just Tesla, all companies. The message is fall in line, or else we'll cripple your company. And it's a message not just to Tesla but to all companies.
One little problem though, Sweden doesn't actually have a socialist government currently. Neither does Denmark. And Norway has a minority socialist government coalition. So, socialists are fresh out of power all over Scandinavia and struggling a bit. Also as Tesla workers aren't unionized. These unions aren't representing those workers directly. This is part of their grudge. So, unions feel a need to assert themselves and reclaim some power. And they are using Tesla to do it. Perfect company for fanning the outrage a little and Elon Musk is always happy to offend anyone with incendiary statements. But you have to see it for what this is: political posturing by the unions.
With Tesla the agenda is that they are a multinational and they are investing billions world wide in creating giga-factories and lots of employment and they are looking to get the best deals for this. Governments are lobbying them heavily for being the next giga factory site. So, what's the signal Elon Musk is giving off with to those governments by doing this in Sweden? Get the unions of my back if you want my money. So, he's happy to let this escalate a little. It works wonders elsewhere. The big picture for him is getting favorable conditions to build his next giga factory elsewhere in Europe. The Swedish are just pawns in that game. My guess is he'll ultimately fold in some way to keep the Scandinavian market going. But forget about a Swedish giga-factory happening.
Yes, this is also the conversation where he said "Go fuck yourself. Go. Fuck. Yourself."
The Danish prime minister is from the social democrat party.
The striking Tesla employees are union members (IF Metall).
As for the socialist conspiracy theories, they mostly feel out of favor in the 1990s.
What unions do is provide an opportunity for the workers to collectively apply power.
Of course, there's a lot of nuance in the implementations, and of course people can be corrupt as hell.
But in no way, shape, or form did unions create the management/worker caste split. Holy hell that requires some twisted logic.
In my particular experience, I always hated working unionized jobs I had and much preferred being a free actor with minimal fuss. I don't feel like "management versus workers" is a real divide in most non-union jobs I had (in which case you could say that systematizing the difference materializes the difference). But I also think it would likely be very different in different companies and industries. Unions aren't for me and I think they've had their use in the past, and I'm ambivalent as to their necessity in modern times (since governments now enforce a good set of minimums).
Says the oligarch to the masses.
That word is often used in only a post-Soviet context, but the word is Greek and far older than the Soviet Union, and the Wikipedia page has a pretty clear definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy and whilst the word triggers near-allergic reactions from Americans it does seem to reflect the power control in the US recently.
Just another interim decision, apparently.
There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).
Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.
As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of...
: President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]
Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal.
I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.
"Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "
It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same:
> "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1]
1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...
Anyone can strike, it is a basic right, but good luck not getting paid. That salary might have been handy for the legal representation after being fired too.
That would be an insane way to escalate the conflict to a level which would bring down the entire force of all the unions combined. They are a huge employer and to even bring up the idea would be regarded infinitely more serious than whatever tiny Tesla is doing.
This is a conflict that PostNord has zero desire to be part of. Their employees are on a perfectly legal strike, they will handle this by the book. All their contracts with their customers already stipulates exactly what can be expected in a force majeure situation such as this, and their union is careful not to disrupt their business more than necessary as that is in their best interest.
Swedish unions are not subjecting Tesla to strikes because they dislike Tesla or Musk, they are doing it to ensure they sign a collective bargain
It is frowned upon to selectively do parts of your job when people are relying on you.
PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use.
PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services.
But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important
Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.
It just so happens that license plates are one of the things that gets blocked. Not because they are license plates but because Tesla is the receiver.
All of that is completely legal and acceptable. Employees of a company (PostNord) are joining together with employees from another company to fight against a company trying to avoid the rules on how the labour market works here.
There's no "civil servant" in play. Everyone is a worker.
Accept that it's a different culture, maybe not better or worse than yours but different. Here the labour market is a free market, the government doesn't regulate much, and it's up to negotiations directly between the participants of the market: employers and employees. For that a lot of companies agree under a Collective Bargaining Agreement the minimum bar expected for employers to respect when contracting employees. These CBAs complement the bare minimum legislation around the labour market from government, they are a cornerstone of almost all labour relationship instead of heavy government regulations.
Those are the rules of the game, Tesla is trying to break them, and worse, they brought scabs to break through the strike, which is really not tolerated in this culture. Because of that they have the sympathy of workers from other industries that Tesla relies on, since Tesla is trying to break the social contract of the labour market, other workers feel that is infringing on their own rights since it will create a precedent for other companies to also ignore the rules of the game.
This is what is in play, I hope you understand it's not your culture, it's ok to be ignorant about it but I expect smart people to also be able to learn a different perspective instead of keeping spouting their ignorance.
Sweden protects the rights of workers
Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No?
Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
'Go fuck yourself'
So, Elon Musk has zero self-awareness. Good to know.
US companies must be scared as hell about what would happen if we had strong sectoral bargaining and permitted sympathy strikes like Nordic countries.
I forgot where that came from but it is a very powerful reminder who ultimately has power and that only in numbers that power can be effectively wielded.
Volvo Cars, Polestar, Volvo AB, Scania, Koenigsegg, Northvolt and also new ones like Emily GT, Candella, Einride etc Even our own fighter jets, submarines and military ships through Saab.
Sounds like something he would like, in addition to his S,3,X,Y range of cars
Tesla is playing this as dumb and tone-deaf as they possibly could.
If only people in the US weren't cowards when it comes to Businesses, things would be much better.
Discovering this Swedish 'quirk' then vs. now wouldn't make Tesla any more likely to roll over to extralegal bullying tactics.
The right to strike is enshrined in the Swedish constitution of all things.
How exactly would it be "bad for Sweden" if Tesla never had entered? Tesla is just another large company. Why would it bad for Sweden if Tesla didn't enter their market because Tesla didn't want to comport itself according to Swedish laws and customs?
Polestar is in turn majority owned by Volvo Cars but also traded on the New York Stock Exchange, having to abide by rules there
Also, remember that time when Elon Musk claimed he would make Tesla private in cooperation with Saudi Arabia?
Also speaking of Saab: The Emily GT is set to start production in the old Saab factory soon, if/when that happens it looks like a solid Tesla Model S competitor.
Lastly: Remember the Tesla Semitruck? Well, Volvo and Scania is performing a bit better there… And Northvolt is supplying them batteries, and the Swedish carbon free steel will soon provide them great raw materials…
I don't think Tesla ending up exiting the Swedish market is the owngoal you think it is for Sweden.
None of the other brands have issues to operate in Sweden.
I think the Swedish will be fine.
Anti Elon, anti American sentiment?
Spotify is Swedish and there is currently no ongoing strike. If you look for articles in Swedish, you'll see plenty.
What makes Tesla different from Klarna and Spotify is that Tesla has a global policy to never sign. So Tesla’s Swedish company is prohibited by Tesla to do any kind of negotiation, and that escalates things drastically.
The "heritage" between the three is also different. Klarna and Spotify are/was Swedish, they know what going up against a union means, and it often involves going against multiple unions as they all help each other.
Tesla clearly have no idea what they were going against, as what is happening now is such an obvious fallout from not understanding the country they're operating in.
Klarna tried to basically 1:1 copy the anti-union campaign of Spotify, but it failed that time on account of the unions having learned to cope with that type of propaganda. Klarna is now under a union contract.
I don't think so. It's a cultural thing: Sweden, and the Nordic countries more generally, have a strong cultural heritage of unions representing the interests of workers. There are elements of protection not included in law - for example minimum wage - that are instead covered by union protection.
Tesla has taken a position that it will not sign up to collective bargaining globally - and so won't engage with the unions on it. That creates a fissure: a difference in policy.
So it's not anti-American. It's a refusal to accept the terms on which a corporation wants to engage. A similar situation happened with Klarna and Spotify as others have pointed out.
It might verge on anti-Musk, but only because this kind of thing is in "red rag to a bull" territory for him. He is utterly recalcitrant generally: backing down isn't in his nature. It would seem that has only stiffened the resolve of the Nordic workers and unions.
But even then it's equally valid to see Musk as "Anti-Sweden": unwilling to respect cultural norms in a country he wants his company to operate in.
Tesla has refused to negotiate. Even then, it still took five years before the conflict escalated.
At some point negotiations with Spotify will have to be restarted. It's likely not an option for Spotify to exit the country completely, which is perfectly possible for Tesla.
It would require however that there are other couriers that fulfill their safety requirements with the logistic infrastructure to deliver to the entire country. That's not likely. But entirely within the realm of possibility that someone with deep pockets could start one.
However it would not make any difference for Tesla, as that courier would also be unionized. Few other companies would do business with them otherwise, as Tesla is about to find out.
You can’t have a “should not respect strikes” clause in your tender, especially not as a government agency
How do you reconsile that such belief with democracy?
Because that set of beliefs is only compatiable with belief in some kind of trans-national oligarchy. Or maybe some sort of America-centeic-colonialism, i am struggling to think of better term.
“In a case related to the PostNord action, a court on 27 November ruled that the Swedish Transport Agency must find a way to get licence plates to Tesla. The agency has appealed against the decision.
Some Swedish pension funds have urged Tesla to sign the agreement with the union, but have so far held off from selling their shares.”
https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/tesla-far-vanta-pa-registreringssk...
This sounds like a shakedown.
There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold.
The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.
Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation.
The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.
So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.
What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.
Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration.
So far two international companies have refused this:
Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in.
Tesla now.
They have options of course:
1) Stop doing business in Sweden.
2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.
Complying with labor protections is not extortion.
And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.
This is buying a ticket to the movie and then a mobster taking another fee at the door.
Of course you sign a contract when doing business. It's like that in any market economy.
What's peculiar about Sweden is how that extends to the labor market. So instead of commercial civil law you have contract law. That's the only difference.
Tesla can either negotiate a contract and do business, or exit the market. They are free to do either.
What seemingly confuses people is that Tesla is not breaking any civil law. Only contract law, which the market has organized around, and which it is free to refuse their business about.
Who is blackmailing whom?
Where will these political demands stop? Will the unions drive into a bankruptcy any company that expands in another low cost, not unionized country? Any company that employs migrants? Who would bet a billion dollar investment on the answer to such questions?
The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary.
That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;)
Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions.
I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...
You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them.
They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market.
> and are therefore risky places to invest
It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.
It's other people who want to exercise their customary (but not really legal) right to extract private taxes who try to force Tesla to comply by sabotaging their business.
Tesla needs a contract with the labor market. It's that simple. Matters of the workplace is mostly under contract law in Sweden, as opposed to civil law. That's unusual internationally, even if all the Nordic countries have similar systems, but it is what it is. Free actors competing in an open market under contract law should be appealing to anyone with a libertarian bent.
The people who actually work for Tesla are car mechanics and it is the union that organizes car mechanics that is the pushing for a contract, so it is certainly people who work there who is behind the strike. They are known by name and give interviews with media, you can fact check everything so there's nothing strange going on.
And certainly nobody wants to sabotage anything. That would be counterproductive. Unions in general has every incentive to help create strong companies who can compete internationally and create as many local jobs as possible. This situation is not different, apart from the fact that they have not even started negotiations yet.
So if the Swedish state, by its inaction, allows an American car company to be targeted by public employees to the point where it is driven out of the market, the proportional retaliation from the US is not a 10% or 20% import duty; it's the complete blocking of Swedish brands. This would cost Sweden entire percentages of GDP and countless jobs.
The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
> The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.
What sort of people do you think IF Metall is made up of? It's the second largest union in Sweden, the people who are a part of the union are also workers at Tesla and other companies. It's not made up of "career-unionists" if that's what you thought.
It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
How do you know this though? Union membership is anonymous. You have no reason to tell your employer you're a member. If there's a strike all employees can legally take part to help stop identification of members. Every member of Tesla could be a union member saying they aren't to avoid pushback by Tesla. That's just as likely as none of them being a member.
Unions don't do solidarity strikes across the entire Nordics without having the support of the people they're trying to help.
> It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.
The people you call "the management of the labour unions" are workers just like the rest. Again, they are not "career-unionists", they are workers who care about worker rights, just like all the other people at the other unions joining the strike.
Despite what HN seems to think, these unions are bullies and completely unnecessary middle men.
How much experience do you have with Swedish unions specifically? And with Swedish industry in general?
Judging by your comments, your experience seems to come from reading US news, is that close to the truth?
For example, the percentage of your salary for membership is not a static one, it varies. And even so, it has a max amount (around 60USD last time I checked). Did you account for that when doing your calculations?
IF Metall are driving these negotiations on behalf of their members working at Tesla - had they not shown any interest, IF Metall would not have bothered.
[0] https://twitter.com/NicklasNilsso14/status/17255571334358634...
You're literally quoting a letter from Tesla, this has no credibility whatsoever.
Buy ports, buy ships, buy trucks, buy electricians, buy a brand new postal service etc.
The $26 B cash on hand should be used somewhere, instead of usual executive package and share buyback.
Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
Yup, squashing worker rights for corporations everywhere sounds like a good way of spending $26B.
> Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.
Why don't you try to read the guidelines before posting, if you think you might be breaking some guideline?
But no, you're getting downvoted not because of breaking the rules, but because of the horrible opinion and lack of care of the common worker.
So, assuming you're serious... Eh?
Tesla shareholder meeting, 2024. "We're going to spend 26 billion dollars on attempting to build a parallel economy in Sweden." ".... Why?" "Oh, spite, mostly."
How do you think that would go over?
Spending 0 dollars on just fucking signing the contract like literally everyone else in the country, or several billions trying to construct a parallel society in Sweden. This parallel society would of course have just as much right to strike as the current one, given that the right to strike is constitutionally protected in Sweden.
I guess it would be an effective way of dethroning Elon from Tesla, so I agree - let's go ahead and do it.