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...
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?
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, postnord is free to not accept strike breakers.
https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/zEpyow/arbeiderpartiet-hasteinn... (in Norwegian).
It is not PostNord's decision. Striking is a constituional right in Sweden and it would be illegal for PostNord to prevent it.