14 ms·

If Tesla refuses to sign a collective agreement with the labor unions I hope they leave the Swedish labor market. Refusing to sign a collective agreement is a c

by Tryk 3y ago

If Tesla refuses to sign a collective agreement with the labor unions I hope they leave the Swedish labor market. Refusing to sign a collective agreement is a completely tone-deaf approach to conducting a business in Sweden. For instance, Sweden does not have a legal minimum wage - this is all done by collective agreements. Nine out of ten employees work under a collective agreement.

Waterluvian 3y ago
This is a very important distinction to be aware of. Thanks for sharing it. It's too easy to just perceive it as "American-style unions in Sweden."
- tokai 3y ago
  American union are bad in a very particular way. While unions in other countries can have issues, Americans can safely assume that they cannot map their experience with unions to other countries.
  - chollida1 3y ago
    > American union are bad in a very particular way. Can you expand here?
    - justrealist 3y ago
      American unions have an incredibly adversarial relationship with their employers in a way that European unions do not. (many) European unions are collaborative with their employers and act like they fundamentally want to help the business grow so there's more to share. American unions, even when they are not outright corrupt mafia-eque organizations (ie, longshoresmen), are purely extractive.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        I would argue you are correct in fact, but wrong in detail. The European unions were absolutely ball busters and they won. That’s why they’re not adversarial, they don’t need to be. Employers who don’t go along find them self with no labor force.
        smcg 3y ago
        Europe didn't have nearly as brutal of an anti-labor crackdown as the US had in the 1870-1920s period.
      - grumple 3y ago
        Calling Americans unions purely extractive is not accurate. American unions fight for employee rights, including fair wages, time off, fair treatment, and employee safety. Unions do not want to bankrupt their employers, they just want to be treated fairly.
        justrealist 3y ago
        What you're describing is extractive. They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". They are not attempting to balance those constraints. They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. It's OK to think that this is a good thing but this is not the same as a collaborative relationship, like you would have with coworkers or another team at a (non-dysfunctional) company.
        standardUser 3y ago
        > They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. > They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. And what, precisely, do you think companies are doing?
    - brianwawok 3y ago
      Just about every American union is very much about a) Years at job = pay. Absolutely no pay increase or decrease for working harder or being better than average. b) You are near impossible to fire unless you do something really dumb (caught watching porn at work multiple times, punch someone). You can be far below average and kinda sorta do your factory job and keep it for life. Both are 1000000% against every fiber in my being, and would make me 100% never want to work at this kind of union. This is how like the autoworker and Police and teachers unions work. There is no reason say a programmer union couldn't exist with different tools. And it could totally allow merit based pay and all of that. So by absolutely no means do I say that all unions are bad. I just know the standard American Union does not get along with my life goals.
      - xyzelement 3y ago
        I really appreciate this comment because it gets to the root of my unease with unions in the US. It's good for society, the individual, and the employer when people have room to grow/work harder/contribute more and be rewarded for it. When I hear pro-union talk around me, it does come packaged with "working any harder than the minimum is evil" vibe that I find disruptive on whatever level it is accepted. IE - if you accept "work the least possible" as an individual, you yourself will do poorly. If the organization is forced to accept it, it will decline against other domestic competitors. If the country is forced to accept it, it will decline against international competitors.
        tokai 3y ago
        My union representative is currently working with my boss to get rid of an employee that isn't pulling their weight. It is harming both the company and colleagues when someone doesn't fulfill their duties. In the Nordic countries it is quite easy to get rid of workers, as the welfare state is supposed care for people til they find other work. It makes for a quite flexible labor market.
        bombcar 3y ago
        This is the missing link that I've rarely if ever seen in the USA - the Union needs to "police itself" so that they are guaranteeing a certain "value of labor". In the US the biggest group complaining about lazy union employees are the other union employees.
    - nimbius 3y ago
      hi there, IAM USA union member here. perhaps i can shed some light. our union helps us negotiate for health insurance, dental, life insurance and a 401k contribution from our employer. in the first year we had it, we negotiated other things too. we de-gendered our shop floor bathrooms, made the company replace burned out overhead lights and exit sign "stickers" with real, light up exit signs. we made sure the break room was well lit (formerly all the lights were burned out) and there was a way to get our money back from the vending machines which were basicaly one armed bandits. we changed the way our facilities maintenance teams work to make sure they put down warning signs if theyve mopped and made sure the bathrooms got serviced once a day. we made a 2 year plan to provide functional safety guards on all the older equipment (met and done in 8 months by our awesome machine shop!) and finally fix the parking lot lights so employees felt safe going home on second shift. these changes were also affected to non-union employees, mostly as a hold-the-line tactic to keep them from ever unionizing, but in the long run the company had to spend significant amounts of money on things that were traditionally deemed "non-essential" like toilet paper or exit signs.
      - cptcobalt 3y ago
        Seems like a lot of things that should not require a union to fix, but other policy should be in place for, like, having toilet paper and lights on
      - LinAGKar 3y ago
        Where's the bad part?
  - r053bud 3y ago
    > American union are bad in a very particular way. Blanket statements require more explanation than this.
- icepat 3y ago
  North American style unions are radically different than Nordic style. Nordic ones are trade-specific more often than not, where as in North American they are predominantly company specific, with some exceptions like Electricians Unions in Canada. For example, the Engineer's Union (Verkfræðingafélag) has employees across the board. When you change jobs, you retain your union as long as you meet the criteria.
  - catskul2 3y ago
    > where as in North American they are predominantly company specific... Why do you think that? I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. AFAIK, North American unions are not generally company specific. They are trade specific in most cases, and in the case of auto-workers it's mostly the UWA.
    - icepat 3y ago
      Could be entirely wrong, but that was my understanding from unionisation votes in companies, and discussions about forming unions at companies. How does it work in North America? There's a catch-all union in Iceland that everyone who is not trade specific falls into.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        Once again, I've never been in a union so I could be wrong, but that's for those locations to unionize and join one of these nation-wide unions. Depending on the place, its not even always company-wide votes. For instance, there was a push for a few Amazon warehouses to join a union. If those votes had passed, it would have been the workers at that location then represented by the union. And on top of that, its often only particular jobs that would fall under that union, not all jobs at that facility. That's why the auto companies are doing other layoffs these days, as there are other jobs at the factories that are not a part of the United Auto Workers and are not a part of the strike, but depend on the union workers working for their jobs to not pile up outputs or have no incoming tasks. Its not like all Ford or GM employees are a part of the United Auto Workers.
  - 3y ago
kylebenzle 3y ago
Elon being tone deaf? I don't believe it :)
duxup 3y ago
Let's say they didn't sign. Would enough people in Sweeden just not buy Teslas? I don't doubt it is "tone-deaf" but I see that mentioned a lot and PR spats seem to result in very little. I find it hard to gauge these kinds of things, lots of PR disasters are declared but I'm not sure many matter, even highly publicized gaffs don't seem to change much.
- tacker2000 3y ago
  No, but the pool of available employees would be reduced.
- tokai 3y ago
  Not buy? That not what is going to happen. The union is going to block them. People will have a harder time physically showing up to work. Maybe trash, mail, etc. will not be delivered.
- mdgrech23 3y ago
  There has got to be some kind of legal recourse for the union.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Typically in Sweden the other unions will just shitlist the businesses in question. Hard to do business when you can't dispose of trash (trash union blockades you), nothing is delivered (transport union), etc See e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3cenlm/til_toys_r_us_has_a_global_antiunion_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3cenlm/til_t... Companies that are staunchly anti union everywhere else often capitulate in Sweden
- pelorat 3y ago
  That's not how it works in Sweden. A few years ago a restaurant tried to hire only non unionized workers. When the restaurant union found out, they showed up and prevented customers from entering the restaurant. Don't mess with unions in Sweden. If Tesla don't sign they might find a big trucks on my front of their service location literally blocking the entrance.
shepherdjerred 3y ago
That's very interesting! I had never thought that the state could delegate stuff like minimum wage to unions, but that's actually a pretty decent idea.
- Tryk 3y ago
  This is formally called Tripartism and there is a stub of an article about this on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism
- worldsayshi 3y ago
  Minimum wage is only one point among many for decent working conditions. Dealing with (some) employment conditions through a union seems so much more efficient than dealing with it through the state.
  - Tryk 3y ago
    My anecdotal experience is that it is fantastic. Having a strong union means that you can share their resources such as 100% of your wages being paid during a strike; a legal representative being provided for you by the union (for free). Whenever you want, you can talk to your local union representative to inform you of your rights. And you may even choose, if you want, to have a union representative, i.e. a labor rights expert, present when you negotiate salary or resolve a conflict with your employer. Everyone acts a lot nicer to each other when the power dynamic is balanced!
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Depends though, because in theory you could then have wildly different employment conditions depending on which union / industry you work for. Of course, if another industry has better conditions, you can always vote with your feet. Competing for employees benefits the employees, in theory. This is why I don't understand the "we can't find staff" thing. No, you can't afford staff, there's a difference. Offer me more money and a training program and I'll change my career. It's that simple.
foooorsyth 3y ago
European workers are the tone deaf ones. Saab died. Volvo is dying and owned by China. Your working demands don’t meet the requirements of running a successful automotive company today. Enjoy your two months off per year and 36 hour work weeks. They won’t keep any future Swedish automotive companies afloat.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Maybe they don't care. The thing about values is they only count when they're actually tested and have consequences.
- brtkdotse 3y ago
  > Saab died Under GM management.
  - foooorsyth 3y ago
    Saab was facing insolvency when GM bought 50% of the company. Would you have preferred the brand to die sooner?
    - brtkdotse 3y ago
      Frankly? Yes. The drawn out death rattle was annoying to follow. But if you list the causes of SAABs demise you get pretty far down the list before coming to "2 months vacation and 36 hour workdays" (it's 25 days and 39 hour work weeks btw).
      - DennisP 3y ago
        So what were the causes? I was a Saab fan so I'm curious.
        brtkdotse 3y ago
        I'm sure someone has a good writeup¹, but as to my understanding they had a really weird lineup where the 9-5 competed with 9-3 and both were basically low-end luxury sedans marketed as family cars. ¹) Yep, see dagw's sibling comment.

by Tryk 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago

This is a very important distinction to be aware of. Thanks for sharing it. It's too easy to just perceive it as "American-style unions in Sweden."

tokai 3y ago
American union are bad in a very particular way. While unions in other countries can have issues, Americans can safely assume that they cannot map their experience with unions to other countries.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > American union are bad in a very particular way. Can you expand here?
  - justrealist 3y ago
    American unions have an incredibly adversarial relationship with their employers in a way that European unions do not. (many) European unions are collaborative with their employers and act like they fundamentally want to help the business grow so there's more to share. American unions, even when they are not outright corrupt mafia-eque organizations (ie, longshoresmen), are purely extractive.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      I would argue you are correct in fact, but wrong in detail. The European unions were absolutely ball busters and they won. That’s why they’re not adversarial, they don’t need to be. Employers who don’t go along find them self with no labor force.
      - smcg 3y ago
        Europe didn't have nearly as brutal of an anti-labor crackdown as the US had in the 1870-1920s period.
    - grumple 3y ago
      Calling Americans unions purely extractive is not accurate. American unions fight for employee rights, including fair wages, time off, fair treatment, and employee safety. Unions do not want to bankrupt their employers, they just want to be treated fairly.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        What you're describing is extractive. They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". They are not attempting to balance those constraints. They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. It's OK to think that this is a good thing but this is not the same as a collaborative relationship, like you would have with coworkers or another team at a (non-dysfunctional) company.
        standardUser 3y ago
        > They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. > They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. And what, precisely, do you think companies are doing?
  - brianwawok 3y ago
    Just about every American union is very much about a) Years at job = pay. Absolutely no pay increase or decrease for working harder or being better than average. b) You are near impossible to fire unless you do something really dumb (caught watching porn at work multiple times, punch someone). You can be far below average and kinda sorta do your factory job and keep it for life. Both are 1000000% against every fiber in my being, and would make me 100% never want to work at this kind of union. This is how like the autoworker and Police and teachers unions work. There is no reason say a programmer union couldn't exist with different tools. And it could totally allow merit based pay and all of that. So by absolutely no means do I say that all unions are bad. I just know the standard American Union does not get along with my life goals.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      I really appreciate this comment because it gets to the root of my unease with unions in the US. It's good for society, the individual, and the employer when people have room to grow/work harder/contribute more and be rewarded for it. When I hear pro-union talk around me, it does come packaged with "working any harder than the minimum is evil" vibe that I find disruptive on whatever level it is accepted. IE - if you accept "work the least possible" as an individual, you yourself will do poorly. If the organization is forced to accept it, it will decline against other domestic competitors. If the country is forced to accept it, it will decline against international competitors.
      - tokai 3y ago
        My union representative is currently working with my boss to get rid of an employee that isn't pulling their weight. It is harming both the company and colleagues when someone doesn't fulfill their duties. In the Nordic countries it is quite easy to get rid of workers, as the welfare state is supposed care for people til they find other work. It makes for a quite flexible labor market.
        bombcar 3y ago
        This is the missing link that I've rarely if ever seen in the USA - the Union needs to "police itself" so that they are guaranteeing a certain "value of labor". In the US the biggest group complaining about lazy union employees are the other union employees.
  - nimbius 3y ago
    hi there, IAM USA union member here. perhaps i can shed some light. our union helps us negotiate for health insurance, dental, life insurance and a 401k contribution from our employer. in the first year we had it, we negotiated other things too. we de-gendered our shop floor bathrooms, made the company replace burned out overhead lights and exit sign "stickers" with real, light up exit signs. we made sure the break room was well lit (formerly all the lights were burned out) and there was a way to get our money back from the vending machines which were basicaly one armed bandits. we changed the way our facilities maintenance teams work to make sure they put down warning signs if theyve mopped and made sure the bathrooms got serviced once a day. we made a 2 year plan to provide functional safety guards on all the older equipment (met and done in 8 months by our awesome machine shop!) and finally fix the parking lot lights so employees felt safe going home on second shift. these changes were also affected to non-union employees, mostly as a hold-the-line tactic to keep them from ever unionizing, but in the long run the company had to spend significant amounts of money on things that were traditionally deemed "non-essential" like toilet paper or exit signs.
    - cptcobalt 3y ago
      Seems like a lot of things that should not require a union to fix, but other policy should be in place for, like, having toilet paper and lights on
    - LinAGKar 3y ago
      Where's the bad part?
- r053bud 3y ago
  > American union are bad in a very particular way. Blanket statements require more explanation than this.
icepat 3y ago
North American style unions are radically different than Nordic style. Nordic ones are trade-specific more often than not, where as in North American they are predominantly company specific, with some exceptions like Electricians Unions in Canada. For example, the Engineer's Union (Verkfræðingafélag) has employees across the board. When you change jobs, you retain your union as long as you meet the criteria.
- catskul2 3y ago
  > where as in North American they are predominantly company specific... Why do you think that? I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. AFAIK, North American unions are not generally company specific. They are trade specific in most cases, and in the case of auto-workers it's mostly the UWA.
  - icepat 3y ago
    Could be entirely wrong, but that was my understanding from unionisation votes in companies, and discussions about forming unions at companies. How does it work in North America? There's a catch-all union in Iceland that everyone who is not trade specific falls into.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Once again, I've never been in a union so I could be wrong, but that's for those locations to unionize and join one of these nation-wide unions. Depending on the place, its not even always company-wide votes. For instance, there was a push for a few Amazon warehouses to join a union. If those votes had passed, it would have been the workers at that location then represented by the union. And on top of that, its often only particular jobs that would fall under that union, not all jobs at that facility. That's why the auto companies are doing other layoffs these days, as there are other jobs at the factories that are not a part of the United Auto Workers and are not a part of the strike, but depend on the union workers working for their jobs to not pile up outputs or have no incoming tasks. Its not like all Ford or GM employees are a part of the United Auto Workers.
- 3y ago

kylebenzle 3y ago

Elon being tone deaf? I don't believe it :)

duxup 3y ago

Let's say they didn't sign. Would enough people in Sweeden just not buy Teslas? I don't doubt it is "tone-deaf" but I see that mentioned a lot and PR spats seem to result in very little. I find it hard to gauge these kinds of things, lots of PR disasters are declared but I'm not sure many matter, even highly publicized gaffs don't seem to change much.

tacker2000 3y ago
No, but the pool of available employees would be reduced.
tokai 3y ago
Not buy? That not what is going to happen. The union is going to block them. People will have a harder time physically showing up to work. Maybe trash, mail, etc. will not be delivered.
mdgrech23 3y ago
There has got to be some kind of legal recourse for the union.
- dmoy 3y ago
  Typically in Sweden the other unions will just shitlist the businesses in question. Hard to do business when you can't dispose of trash (trash union blockades you), nothing is delivered (transport union), etc See e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3cenlm/til_toys_r_us_has_a_global_antiunion_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3cenlm/til_t... Companies that are staunchly anti union everywhere else often capitulate in Sweden
pelorat 3y ago
That's not how it works in Sweden. A few years ago a restaurant tried to hire only non unionized workers. When the restaurant union found out, they showed up and prevented customers from entering the restaurant. Don't mess with unions in Sweden. If Tesla don't sign they might find a big trucks on my front of their service location literally blocking the entrance.

shepherdjerred 3y ago

That's very interesting! I had never thought that the state could delegate stuff like minimum wage to unions, but that's actually a pretty decent idea.

Tryk 3y ago
This is formally called Tripartism and there is a stub of an article about this on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism
worldsayshi 3y ago
Minimum wage is only one point among many for decent working conditions. Dealing with (some) employment conditions through a union seems so much more efficient than dealing with it through the state.
- Tryk 3y ago
  My anecdotal experience is that it is fantastic. Having a strong union means that you can share their resources such as 100% of your wages being paid during a strike; a legal representative being provided for you by the union (for free). Whenever you want, you can talk to your local union representative to inform you of your rights. And you may even choose, if you want, to have a union representative, i.e. a labor rights expert, present when you negotiate salary or resolve a conflict with your employer. Everyone acts a lot nicer to each other when the power dynamic is balanced!
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Depends though, because in theory you could then have wildly different employment conditions depending on which union / industry you work for. Of course, if another industry has better conditions, you can always vote with your feet. Competing for employees benefits the employees, in theory. This is why I don't understand the "we can't find staff" thing. No, you can't afford staff, there's a difference. Offer me more money and a training program and I'll change my career. It's that simple.

foooorsyth 3y ago

European workers are the tone deaf ones. Saab died. Volvo is dying and owned by China. Your working demands don’t meet the requirements of running a successful automotive company today. Enjoy your two months off per year and 36 hour work weeks. They won’t keep any future Swedish automotive companies afloat.

CPLX 3y ago
Maybe they don't care. The thing about values is they only count when they're actually tested and have consequences.
brtkdotse 3y ago
> Saab died Under GM management.
- foooorsyth 3y ago
  Saab was facing insolvency when GM bought 50% of the company. Would you have preferred the brand to die sooner?
  - brtkdotse 3y ago
    Frankly? Yes. The drawn out death rattle was annoying to follow. But if you list the causes of SAABs demise you get pretty far down the list before coming to "2 months vacation and 36 hour workdays" (it's 25 days and 39 hour work weeks btw).
    - DennisP 3y ago
      So what were the causes? I was a Saab fan so I'm curious.
      - brtkdotse 3y ago
        I'm sure someone has a good writeup¹, but as to my understanding they had a really weird lineup where the 9-5 competed with 9-3 and both were basically low-end luxury sedans marketed as family cars. ¹) Yep, see dagw's sibling comment.