4 ms·

Unions are a good thing, definately right now when the competition from "slave owners" in eastern Europe, China etc will exploit workers and outrun competition

Unions are a good thing, definately right now when the competition from "slave owners" in eastern Europe, China etc will exploit workers and outrun competition that way. For Tesla, with China's export of electric vehicle it would be a good thing to "set the bar" and prevent low cost workers from entering the market - hence securing Tesla's position in Sweden. And that's what the "Swedish model" of working is all about, Unions "set the lower bar" for what is acceptable and what is not.

aborsy 3y ago
Not necessarily. They protect exploitation of the some of the workers, but often bring about abuse and host of other problems.
- guilamu 3y ago
  Any kind of reference, please and thank you, to corroborate those affirmations?
- lawn 3y ago
  Please remember that unions in Sweden aren't the same as unions in the US.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Can you explain how they differ?
  - rvnx 3y ago
    I understand the feeling of Aborsy; in another European country (France) Unions are a non-elected political force that seizes power by force in a factory / company. Once they have established their power, they do anything they can to impose their law on other workers and collect money from both the owners, and the other employees. And to be considered part of the group, you have to pay an annual membership to them in order to get “protected”.
    - eddtries 3y ago
      I pay a couple dollars a year in Sweden and my union offers unemployment insurance, 80% of my salary for six months if I’m laid off. I’m okay with that annual membership if that was all I got :)
      - hef19898 3y ago
        On top of government unemployment benefits? That is incredibly generous!
        eddtries 3y ago
        Actually I don’t know if they’re on top of or a total replacement, but even as a replacement I’m happy! I work as a consultant so it’s always a little risky finding clients, but my annual take home from the previous year covers the downtime And honestly I’d argue this fairly liberal approach encourages entrepreneurship because you have so many safety nets
        VoxPelli 3y ago
        It’s on top of, as the maximum you can get from public unemployment funds are capped fairly low nowadays and rarely reaches the intended 80%, hence why the unions steps in and offers extra insurance Unions typically offer collectively bargained felt insurance and such here as well
        eddtries 3y ago
        Thanks for the context :)
        dagw 3y ago
        No, it make sure your total unemployment benefits is 80% of what your salary used to be.
        Gud 3y ago
        Although this is often administered by a union, you don't have to be a union member to be a part of an A-kassa. Essentially, it's an unemployment insurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  What do you think we should conclude from this? Is abuse more intrinsic to unions than it is to employers? What are the other problems? If the doctor tells you that you need antibiotics to survive your infection, do you dwell on all the possible side effects, or do you just want to not die? If this is not just being pendantic, it seems to imply that having no unions are better than having unions. Is that actually what you want to argue here? If not, what are you trying to contribute?
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Okay. “Abuse” and “other problems”. I’m convinced already.
- atoav 3y ago
  Any source for "abuse and a host of other problems" brought about by swedish unions, or is this just a gut feeling by yours truly? Even of I look at the most problematic union conduct I can recall of the top of my head it is absolutely dwarfed by any potential abuse coming from corporations which unarguably is many magnitudes more problematic. And this includes armed rebellions against company armies. It is a bit like pointing to a few cases were ambulances produced traffic accidents and demand that they can't be trusted for that reason. Maybe it's my physics interest, but if this was a formula I would say we can ignore the union downsides because they are insignificant. Unions over all have shown to be helping raise the standards for even those who are not in them and there is enough sociological research to back that conclusively. Systemically, if corporations would share their success with their employees instead of trying to maximize the extracted value. So the flavour of unions you will get has to do with the society you are in. In an era where corporate sends Pinkerton thugs to beat up people unions will jive very differently than in a social democratic nation in Scandinavia in the 2020s. Heck, I would even say that in the rugged-individualism-embarassed-billionaire-land that the US is, unions would take on a different shape than in any neighbouring country just based on cultural differences. So a bit more nuance and a look at things at scale is certainly needed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Propelloni 3y ago
Imagine European unions would export their "lower bars" by helping workers in other countries unionize. That would give globalisation a whole new meaning.
- VoxPelli 3y ago
  International solidarity between unions is a natural part of being a union (Well, unless when you want to protect jobs from moving abroad, then the solidarity is gone. Eg. the German unions are great at ensuring that any job cuts happens in other European countries instead of in Germany)
irusensei 3y ago
Good unions are a good thing you mean? I've lived in Brazil and over there most unions are disgraceful corrupt and nepotist institutions. Their directors are filthy rich from a time every worker was forced to pay a day of his wages every year. Opting out was as convenient and hard you can imagine and most agreements were corrupt dealings in closed doors with no regard to the interest of workers. The one union I was forced to participate had its director caught accepting bribery and hiring his own family for director roles, whom in turn were lavished in gifts from companies like imported luxury vehicles. The obligatory association law was abolished a few years ago but these unions are still trying to lobby government to provide an alternative to. A few months ago the Supreme Court came to an understanding it was okay to bring back the tax with opt out system under a different name.

aborsy 3y ago

Not necessarily. They protect exploitation of the some of the workers, but often bring about abuse and host of other problems.

guilamu 3y ago
Any kind of reference, please and thank you, to corroborate those affirmations?
lawn 3y ago
Please remember that unions in Sweden aren't the same as unions in the US.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Can you explain how they differ?
- rvnx 3y ago
  I understand the feeling of Aborsy; in another European country (France) Unions are a non-elected political force that seizes power by force in a factory / company. Once they have established their power, they do anything they can to impose their law on other workers and collect money from both the owners, and the other employees. And to be considered part of the group, you have to pay an annual membership to them in order to get “protected”.
  - eddtries 3y ago
    I pay a couple dollars a year in Sweden and my union offers unemployment insurance, 80% of my salary for six months if I’m laid off. I’m okay with that annual membership if that was all I got :)
    - hef19898 3y ago
      On top of government unemployment benefits? That is incredibly generous!
      - eddtries 3y ago
        Actually I don’t know if they’re on top of or a total replacement, but even as a replacement I’m happy! I work as a consultant so it’s always a little risky finding clients, but my annual take home from the previous year covers the downtime And honestly I’d argue this fairly liberal approach encourages entrepreneurship because you have so many safety nets
        VoxPelli 3y ago
        It’s on top of, as the maximum you can get from public unemployment funds are capped fairly low nowadays and rarely reaches the intended 80%, hence why the unions steps in and offers extra insurance Unions typically offer collectively bargained felt insurance and such here as well
        eddtries 3y ago
        Thanks for the context :)
      - dagw 3y ago
        No, it make sure your total unemployment benefits is 80% of what your salary used to be.
      - Gud 3y ago
        Although this is often administered by a union, you don't have to be a union member to be a part of an A-kassa. Essentially, it's an unemployment insurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_funds_in_Sweden
beepbooptheory 3y ago
What do you think we should conclude from this? Is abuse more intrinsic to unions than it is to employers? What are the other problems? If the doctor tells you that you need antibiotics to survive your infection, do you dwell on all the possible side effects, or do you just want to not die? If this is not just being pendantic, it seems to imply that having no unions are better than having unions. Is that actually what you want to argue here? If not, what are you trying to contribute?
avgcorrection 3y ago
Okay. “Abuse” and “other problems”. I’m convinced already.
atoav 3y ago
Any source for "abuse and a host of other problems" brought about by swedish unions, or is this just a gut feeling by yours truly? Even of I look at the most problematic union conduct I can recall of the top of my head it is absolutely dwarfed by any potential abuse coming from corporations which unarguably is many magnitudes more problematic. And this includes armed rebellions against company armies. It is a bit like pointing to a few cases were ambulances produced traffic accidents and demand that they can't be trusted for that reason. Maybe it's my physics interest, but if this was a formula I would say we can ignore the union downsides because they are insignificant. Unions over all have shown to be helping raise the standards for even those who are not in them and there is enough sociological research to back that conclusively. Systemically, if corporations would share their success with their employees instead of trying to maximize the extracted value. So the flavour of unions you will get has to do with the society you are in. In an era where corporate sends Pinkerton thugs to beat up people unions will jive very differently than in a social democratic nation in Scandinavia in the 2020s. Heck, I would even say that in the rugged-individualism-embarassed-billionaire-land that the US is, unions would take on a different shape than in any neighbouring country just based on cultural differences. So a bit more nuance and a look at things at scale is certainly needed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Propelloni 3y ago

Imagine European unions would export their "lower bars" by helping workers in other countries unionize. That would give globalisation a whole new meaning.

VoxPelli 3y ago
International solidarity between unions is a natural part of being a union (Well, unless when you want to protect jobs from moving abroad, then the solidarity is gone. Eg. the German unions are great at ensuring that any job cuts happens in other European countries instead of in Germany)

irusensei 3y ago

Good unions are a good thing you mean? I've lived in Brazil and over there most unions are disgraceful corrupt and nepotist institutions. Their directors are filthy rich from a time every worker was forced to pay a day of his wages every year. Opting out was as convenient and hard you can imagine and most agreements were corrupt dealings in closed doors with no regard to the interest of workers. The one union I was forced to participate had its director caught accepting bribery and hiring his own family for director roles, whom in turn were lavished in gifts from companies like imported luxury vehicles. The obligatory association law was abolished a few years ago but these unions are still trying to lobby government to provide an alternative to. A few months ago the Supreme Court came to an understanding it was okay to bring back the tax with opt out system under a different name.