6 ms·

I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to

I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?

bigtex 3y ago
Laws haven't stopped him before, so why would he stop now?
rsynnott 3y ago
I'm not sure he's that into advice, especially that which doesn't come from weird sycophants. See, well, absolutely everything relating to Twitter.
hef19898 3y ago
Maybe, but why do you think he would care?
DoreenMichele 3y ago
I take it you missed the part where he shot his mouth off in public about buying Twitter and then got dragged into court and forced to actually buy it.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Im not sure what you are saying. Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU. They aren't anywhere AFAIK, unions workers just dont like scabs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker#Europe
- markjonsona989 3y ago
  That's why I also said "the way things work here" because it's a cultural thing; you just don't mess with worker's right in Europe. It might not be against the law, but it's not a normal practise. From what I found online last time this happened in Sweden was in 1920s. I'm not from Sweden but I am European and I know that unions and strikes are a normal thing and everybody supports them. If Elon tries to forcefully break up a strike, he will just amass the wrath of other unions and the entire Swedish population turning an issue of collective agreement into a political problem. I honestly don't see this ending well for Tesla.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant
    - eesmith 3y ago
      The law is relevant. In the US, because of the NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. ruling, companies may use strikebreakers as a permanently replacement for striking workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Telegraph_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... The US is one of the few places which allows this. (That is a "Today I Learned".) If I read https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpslagen?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpsla... right, Sweden got rid of the legal right to employ strikebreakers in 1938 when they switched to the "Swedish Model" based more on collective bargaining than on government involvement. Someone used to the US laws should be aware that different countries don't use the same legal framework.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        That contradicts the parent's point that "Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU.". Since Sweden is part of the EU.
        eesmith 3y ago
        From what I understand, there's no law because there's no need for a law as strikebreaking isn't common, and these sorts of issues are covered by industry-wide trade union agreements and protected by the broad right to strike. While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's one mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 , are illegal in the US due to the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act.) The US court interpretation encourages strike breaking. For example, when combined with the decertification provision of Taft-Hartley Act, you can hire strikebreakers then have the new population of workers decertify the union. (This is one of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Telegraph_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... .) So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe. To give what I think is a reasonable analogy, Sweden does not have a minimum wage law while the US does. Instead, minimum wages are determined by union agreements on an industry sector basis. A US employer who enters Sweden and offers a position for only $5/hour might consider that reasonable, as there is no law against it. However, they would (as the Denmark/McDonald's case shows) be subject to industry action that is prohibited in the US.
- hnbad 3y ago
  They're kinda illegal in Germany, actually. Based on a legal change in 2017, employers are prohibited from hiring temp workers[0] to take over work from striking employees. There are probably loopholes by having excess temp workers on staff at all times rather than hiring them specifically during a strike but this kind of redundancy is probably frowned upon by shareholders more than the lost productivity of a strike. [0]: Specifically the law addresses "loan workers" but Germany has fairly strict laws surrounding so-called "independent contractors" in these roles: https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11 https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11
mytailorisrich 3y ago
Tesla is not doing anything illegal as far as I understand. Looks like there is an expectation that Tesla behaves in a certain way in Sweden because "that's way we've always done it" but that's not in law. Tesla is sticking to the law, as far as I understand. I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law. Of course, if workes and unions disagree they can also use their legal rights to try to force Tesla to reconsider. But if they wanted to make all companies behave in a certain way they they should have put that in law.
- danaris 3y ago
  When it comes to ethics, the law should always be seen as the bare minimum, not the bar that we as society should actually expect people and companies to clear.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    The problem is that what you call "ethics" is arbitrary. The law applied uniformly is actually a safety net to protect everyone against arbitrary actions. That's why the rule of law has been so important in the struggle for free societies and liberty.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Companies are totally entitled to stick to the law, but they also need to then deal with the fact that narrow compliance with the law might bring them into conflict with parts of society (who in turn might stick to the law in dealing with them). That said, we already have determined that generally just "sticking to the law" isn't a great defense in all situations anyway.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    In a free society based on the rule of law, you cannot demand that anyone goes beyond the law. That's a key principle. Now, as mentioned, in business other parties can also use their legal rights to bring about negotiations, but let's not depict Tesla as horrible for simply staying within the law...
hnbad 3y ago
Based on the attitude he has shown to compliance at X, I guess he thinks that's not a problem he can't solve by just throwing money at it when push comes to shove. He's infamously been quoted as saying he's okay representing himself in court because he's been sued so many times. I don't think he listens to lawyers unless they can credibly convince him he'll go to prison otherwise.

I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?

bigtex 3y ago

Laws haven't stopped him before, so why would he stop now?

rsynnott 3y ago

I'm not sure he's that into advice, especially that which doesn't come from weird sycophants. See, well, absolutely everything relating to Twitter.

hef19898 3y ago

Maybe, but why do you think he would care?

DoreenMichele 3y ago

I take it you missed the part where he shot his mouth off in public about buying Twitter and then got dragged into court and forced to actually buy it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Im not sure what you are saying. Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU. They aren't anywhere AFAIK, unions workers just dont like scabs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker#Europe

markjonsona989 3y ago
That's why I also said "the way things work here" because it's a cultural thing; you just don't mess with worker's right in Europe. It might not be against the law, but it's not a normal practise. From what I found online last time this happened in Sweden was in 1920s. I'm not from Sweden but I am European and I know that unions and strikes are a normal thing and everybody supports them. If Elon tries to forcefully break up a strike, he will just amass the wrath of other unions and the entire Swedish population turning an issue of collective agreement into a political problem. I honestly don't see this ending well for Tesla.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant
  - eesmith 3y ago
    The law is relevant. In the US, because of the NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. ruling, companies may use strikebreakers as a permanently replacement for striking workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Telegraph_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... The US is one of the few places which allows this. (That is a "Today I Learned".) If I read https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpslagen?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpsla... right, Sweden got rid of the legal right to employ strikebreakers in 1938 when they switched to the "Swedish Model" based more on collective bargaining than on government involvement. Someone used to the US laws should be aware that different countries don't use the same legal framework.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      That contradicts the parent's point that "Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU.". Since Sweden is part of the EU.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        From what I understand, there's no law because there's no need for a law as strikebreaking isn't common, and these sorts of issues are covered by industry-wide trade union agreements and protected by the broad right to strike. While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's one mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 , are illegal in the US due to the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act.) The US court interpretation encourages strike breaking. For example, when combined with the decertification provision of Taft-Hartley Act, you can hire strikebreakers then have the new population of workers decertify the union. (This is one of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Telegraph_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... .) So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe. To give what I think is a reasonable analogy, Sweden does not have a minimum wage law while the US does. Instead, minimum wages are determined by union agreements on an industry sector basis. A US employer who enters Sweden and offers a position for only $5/hour might consider that reasonable, as there is no law against it. However, they would (as the Denmark/McDonald's case shows) be subject to industry action that is prohibited in the US.
hnbad 3y ago
They're kinda illegal in Germany, actually. Based on a legal change in 2017, employers are prohibited from hiring temp workers[0] to take over work from striking employees. There are probably loopholes by having excess temp workers on staff at all times rather than hiring them specifically during a strike but this kind of redundancy is probably frowned upon by shareholders more than the lost productivity of a strike. [0]: Specifically the law addresses "loan workers" but Germany has fairly strict laws surrounding so-called "independent contractors" in these roles: https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11 https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11

mytailorisrich 3y ago

Tesla is not doing anything illegal as far as I understand. Looks like there is an expectation that Tesla behaves in a certain way in Sweden because "that's way we've always done it" but that's not in law. Tesla is sticking to the law, as far as I understand. I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law. Of course, if workes and unions disagree they can also use their legal rights to try to force Tesla to reconsider. But if they wanted to make all companies behave in a certain way they they should have put that in law.

danaris 3y ago
When it comes to ethics, the law should always be seen as the bare minimum, not the bar that we as society should actually expect people and companies to clear.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  The problem is that what you call "ethics" is arbitrary. The law applied uniformly is actually a safety net to protect everyone against arbitrary actions. That's why the rule of law has been so important in the struggle for free societies and liberty.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Companies are totally entitled to stick to the law, but they also need to then deal with the fact that narrow compliance with the law might bring them into conflict with parts of society (who in turn might stick to the law in dealing with them). That said, we already have determined that generally just "sticking to the law" isn't a great defense in all situations anyway.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  In a free society based on the rule of law, you cannot demand that anyone goes beyond the law. That's a key principle. Now, as mentioned, in business other parties can also use their legal rights to bring about negotiations, but let's not depict Tesla as horrible for simply staying within the law...

hnbad 3y ago

Based on the attitude he has shown to compliance at X, I guess he thinks that's not a problem he can't solve by just throwing money at it when push comes to shove. He's infamously been quoted as saying he's okay representing himself in court because he's been sued so many times. I don't think he listens to lawyers unless they can credibly convince him he'll go to prison otherwise.