2 ms·
Expecting a company to just bow to all demands from unions is unreasonable. Losing your job is a risk of striking. That should be known going in. If you aren
by tastyfreeze 3y ago
Expecting a company to just bow to all demands from unions is unreasonable. Losing your job is a risk of striking. That should be known going in. If you aren't willing to lose your job by striking you shouldn't be striking.
Threats are negotiation. The union threatened to strike. The company let the union know what their response would be.
- diggan 3y agoI'm not sure how familiar you are with employment laws in Sweden, but you cannot just fire people willy-nilly, you need to have "Objective grounds for dismissal" in order to fire someone. For example, you are not allowed to fire someone because they're participating in a union, as a employer you'd be setting up yourself to get sued if you do this. Question is, what "participating" actually refers to. One could make the case that striking is just a part of normal participation in the union, while one could also make the opposite case of course. In the end, seems it'd be up to the courts to decide.
- livrem 3y agoThere is a right to strike in the Swedish law as well. As long as the strike is legal (has to be a union involved and follow certain procedures) the employer definitely can not fire anyone. And the union in a case like this is paying all the employees 100% of their salaries while it is ongoing, for however long it will take.
- fl7305 3y agoIn Sweden, the union can blockade a company that they are "negotiating" with. That means that all other unions will refuse to work with that company, and this goes for both suppliers and customers of the blockaded company. No more transportation services, buying parts, getting service people to show up when your equipment is broken, delivering your goods to customers, etc. So, being blockaded is a risk which should be known going in.