5 ms·

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

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.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Maybe Im dense, but I miss the point of what you trying to say. Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden. >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. It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?

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.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Maybe Im dense, but I miss the point of what you trying to say. Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden. >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. It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?