It's a transparent BS argument. If Tesla provides better terms then what harm would come from signing an agreement to not provide worse terms than the industry baseline?
No idea how collective bargaining works in Sweden, im Germany so individual employers regularly enter into supplemental agreements with their respesctive employee councils. So I guess bothing prevents Tesla from doing the same with regards to their "better" conditions, employees and unions propably wont oppose that neither.
Based on my personal experience with Scandinavian unions (I was an unorganized employee in a chain in which some stores had a push for unionization), these “fact checks” should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The math often aint mathin. More often than not they were comparing apples and lemons to come out “on top”. And the unions and their affiliates are just another breed of politicians – both in terms of trustworthiness and ambitions. Quite often they are also just literally politicians with another hat. The stores that got roped in (every store got to freely chose between the store- and the union-approved compensation models) made a huge fuzz when they lost out on variable compensation sometime later.
Now I didn’t work for Tesla, so the deals might work out differently here, but my point is that your comment is double hearsay, and that unions have every incentive to lie – at the very least by omission.
It's the same bullshit argument used by Spotify and Klarna. If the companies are already providing better terms then there's even less reason to not sign a collective bargaining agreement: the CBA only sets the lower bar, anything over that the companies are free to provide as they do right now. Nothing changes if that's the argument.
What they are trying to hide is the argument that a CBA will give power to employees during major reorgs with layoffs, a CBA doesn't set an upper bound to what employers can offer as benefits, just a lower one.
As a person born in Sweden myself I have to say that the two times I have gone from a non-union contract to a union-contract the terms has been worse in a union.
Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats) and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
The workers don't want to strike obviously because they are satisfied with the contracts and have better terms and pay than in their previous jobs for the same age group according to themselves. It's illegal for employers to punish people for participating in unions in Sweden so anyone could go on strike without getting punished for it.
Unions have outplayed their role in society for the most part. The jobs in Sweden that really need unions rarely have them (service jobs).
> As a person born in Sweden myself I have to say that the two times I
> have gone from a non-union contract to a union-contract the terms
> has been worse in a union.
There is no such thing as a "union-contract". What you meant is that
there was a collective bargaining agreement in place at one employer
which prevented them from paying you less than some minimum. That you
then failed to negotiate a higher salary than the minimum is on you
and not the union.
> Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members
> if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats)
> and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
Nope. Unions have barred active members of Sweden Democrats from becoming
functionaries, but have not terminated their memberships. For
developers, unions still offer insurances and have pretty good lawyers
which can negotiate agreements if there are disputes over, for
example, IP, patents, or severance packages.
Unions generally lean left politically for the same reason business organisations tend to lean right. It would be strange for them to advocate for worse policies for their members.
How can the unions exclude members, let alone based what political party they are connected to? At least here in Finland my union has no idea about my politics.
The Sweden Democrats counterpart Finns party can and do enlist in union elections just like anybody. Their success isn't great, but that may be explained e.g. by the party being quite anti-union? For example as we speak they are trying to push laws to restrict strikes and union representation.
You also have minimum wages regulated by law. In Sweden, both strikes and minimum wages are regulated by the agreement Tesla is refusing to sign.
The union wants regulation, that's the whole point. Tesla only have themselves to blame for any action that stems from the decision to not sign a collective agreement.
PS. 90% of Swedish labor is covered by collective agreements that has been hammered out over the last century - it is custom to sign it and no one has brought in scabs for almost a century during a strike, forcing unions to step up their game. As Tesla threatens the Swedish model, it is a concern for all labor.
Can you provide a citation demonstrating evidence of this assertion (it is a very general statement)? You might be referring to the Taft-Hartley act [1], which there are ways around. The NLRB also has a great resource on the topic [2]. It is true there are situations where you cannot strike, which labor organization needs to be mindful of.
Actually, this would be considered a “secondary boycott” which is illegal in the US: “Secondary boycotts: These are strikes that are directed at someone other than the strikers’ employer.”
And it's sad that sympathy strike is illegal in some countries. It's like being able to defend your own family, but being denied to help any other not directly related person.
Like i see a women is being robed, but since she is not my wife i can't intervene and only can observe.
They also have superchargers here – and the sympathy strikes from electricians will include them as well.
And third party service workshops have also been included, so one of the best selling cars in Sweden right now will not be possible to service and neither possible to actually get shipped to Sweden.
This is false, both in the sense that employees that would like to be scabs are not being prevented from crossing the picket line and that there are no Tesla workers taking part in the strike.
However, because Tesla Sweden has repeatedly threatened repercussions (loss of company stock which is the main way Tesla Sweden matches market wages, loss of employment) if you strike, the picket lines are manned by other union members.
Please provide a reputable source of Tesla workers not striking and a theory of who it is that is standing by the so called picket fence.
The unions are allowed to strike because Tesla refuse to sign the collective agreement that regulates the use of strikes while the employees in return are guaranteed a minimum wage, pensions and so on - as have been custom in Sweden over the last century.
Tesla could sign this agreement any time they want to, but they're choosing this fight while the unions wants regulation. That's on them, not anyone else - and Musk is perfectly free to take his business elsewhere if he don't want to conform to Swedish customs.
More than 90% of labor is covered by collective agreements in Sweden, and while the number of members has dropped over the last few decades, about 70% of the population is still members of a union. When Tesla comes in, breaking all unwritten rules and customs and consequently attacking the Swedish model - this is bound to meet heavy resistance from the Swedish workforce.
Can you imagine the outrage that would come from a Swedish company coming to the US, trying to change fundamental mechanics of the system there without the support of its citizens? Why shouldn't this scenario result in the same outrage and resistance here in Sweden?
The solution is simple, sign the agreement - as is custom here in Sweden. If they can't conform to Swedish customs then they are perfectly free to leave.
Why? Those workers are allowed to strike to better industry conditions. Alsobthe workers 'not wanting to strike' is very likely for fear of retaliation.
They’re not being blocked from work - the article clearly states that work is conducted in Tesla workshops. Other workers refuse to work on Tesla-related assignments,
that’s freedom in action.
At all points they are updating the spreadsheet entitled "cost/benefits of leaving Sweden." I suppose the labor cartel is trying for the razor's edge on that.
I do like people arguing that other companies are better for workers. Perfect! Work there instead. No joke--I've done that.
In Sweden there’s not many laws in place for employees, there’s collective bargaining agreements that unions ask for instead. For example there’s no minimum wage, but the unions get a fair living wage for employees. Union / Employer relationships are totally different here than the US. Companies have to agree to the agreement or they’ll struggle, and if Tesla want to leave they can. But employees rights for a good pension, salary, holiday (such as one month off over summer), paternity leave (such as a years leave), etc… are more important. Klarna tried this recently and just folded.
Edit: I do want a Tesla, my workplace will buy me a car (as a perk) at a hefty discount, but if they leave I’ll get a Ford Mustang Mach-E :) no loss for us if Elon throws toys out the pram for ~130 employees
[+] [-] heinrich5991|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kramerger|2 years ago|reply
Someone on r/sweden fact checked their statement and claims Tesla is worse on almost all comparison points including salary.
[+] [-] bjourne|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hef19898|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriops|2 years ago|reply
Now I didn’t work for Tesla, so the deals might work out differently here, but my point is that your comment is double hearsay, and that unions have every incentive to lie – at the very least by omission.
[+] [-] piva00|2 years ago|reply
What they are trying to hide is the argument that a CBA will give power to employees during major reorgs with layoffs, a CBA doesn't set an upper bound to what employers can offer as benefits, just a lower one.
[+] [-] Kiro|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thecopy|2 years ago|reply
* Ports will refuse to load Tesla cars
* Post and package delivery denied
* No office/factory cleaning
[+] [-] VoxPelli|2 years ago|reply
* Electricians won’t do work on office/factory/superchargers
[+] [-] ecmascript|2 years ago|reply
Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats) and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
The workers don't want to strike obviously because they are satisfied with the contracts and have better terms and pay than in their previous jobs for the same age group according to themselves. It's illegal for employers to punish people for participating in unions in Sweden so anyone could go on strike without getting punished for it.
Unions have outplayed their role in society for the most part. The jobs in Sweden that really need unions rarely have them (service jobs).
[+] [-] bjourne|2 years ago|reply
There is no such thing as a "union-contract". What you meant is that there was a collective bargaining agreement in place at one employer which prevented them from paying you less than some minimum. That you then failed to negotiate a higher salary than the minimum is on you and not the union.
> Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members > if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats) > and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
Nope. Unions have barred active members of Sweden Democrats from becoming functionaries, but have not terminated their memberships. For developers, unions still offer insurances and have pretty good lawyers which can negotiate agreements if there are disputes over, for example, IP, patents, or severance packages.
[+] [-] jplrssn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jampekka|2 years ago|reply
The Sweden Democrats counterpart Finns party can and do enlist in union elections just like anybody. Their success isn't great, but that may be explained e.g. by the party being quite anti-union? For example as we speak they are trying to push laws to restrict strikes and union representation.
Maybe there's similar dynamic in Sweden?
[+] [-] _Microft|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ruined|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TraspSE|2 years ago|reply
The union wants regulation, that's the whole point. Tesla only have themselves to blame for any action that stems from the decision to not sign a collective agreement.
PS. 90% of Swedish labor is covered by collective agreements that has been hammered out over the last century - it is custom to sign it and no one has brought in scabs for almost a century during a strike, forcing unions to step up their game. As Tesla threatens the Swedish model, it is a concern for all labor.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
[2] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...
[+] [-] ajhurliman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontlaugh|2 years ago|reply
It doesn't stop some unions from striking anyway, commonly called wildcat strikes.
[+] [-] delfinom|2 years ago|reply
The benefit of a union, is nobody will say otherwise ;)
[+] [-] vincnetas|2 years ago|reply
Like i see a women is being robed, but since she is not my wife i can't intervene and only can observe.
[+] [-] 3seashells|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gedy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lefstathiou|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VoxPelli|2 years ago|reply
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38190645
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38191008
[+] [-] raincole|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VoxPelli|2 years ago|reply
And third party service workshops have also been included, so one of the best selling cars in Sweden right now will not be possible to service and neither possible to actually get shipped to Sweden.
[+] [-] eddtries|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curation|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slaw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|2 years ago|reply
However, because Tesla Sweden has repeatedly threatened repercussions (loss of company stock which is the main way Tesla Sweden matches market wages, loss of employment) if you strike, the picket lines are manned by other union members.
[+] [-] TraspSE|2 years ago|reply
The unions are allowed to strike because Tesla refuse to sign the collective agreement that regulates the use of strikes while the employees in return are guaranteed a minimum wage, pensions and so on - as have been custom in Sweden over the last century.
Tesla could sign this agreement any time they want to, but they're choosing this fight while the unions wants regulation. That's on them, not anyone else - and Musk is perfectly free to take his business elsewhere if he don't want to conform to Swedish customs.
More than 90% of labor is covered by collective agreements in Sweden, and while the number of members has dropped over the last few decades, about 70% of the population is still members of a union. When Tesla comes in, breaking all unwritten rules and customs and consequently attacking the Swedish model - this is bound to meet heavy resistance from the Swedish workforce.
Can you imagine the outrage that would come from a Swedish company coming to the US, trying to change fundamental mechanics of the system there without the support of its citizens? Why shouldn't this scenario result in the same outrage and resistance here in Sweden?
The solution is simple, sign the agreement - as is custom here in Sweden. If they can't conform to Swedish customs then they are perfectly free to leave.
[+] [-] monkaiju|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmanner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameishere|2 years ago|reply
I do like people arguing that other companies are better for workers. Perfect! Work there instead. No joke--I've done that.
[+] [-] eddtries|2 years ago|reply
Edit: I do want a Tesla, my workplace will buy me a car (as a perk) at a hefty discount, but if they leave I’ll get a Ford Mustang Mach-E :) no loss for us if Elon throws toys out the pram for ~130 employees
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rightbyte|2 years ago|reply