5 ms·
Perhaps the US can learn something about the power of labour unions from this.
by worldsayshi 3y ago
Perhaps the US can learn something about the power of labour unions from this.
- orwin 3y agoIt's illegal in the US I think.
- lillecarl 3y agoBy design, workers shouldn't have too much power. Then they might live an enjoyable life!?
- malermeister 3y agoEver wonder why?
- mananaysiempre 3y agoIn 1947, after a strike wave triggered by postwar inflation, the anti-union Taft–Hartley Act[1] was passed by bipartisan agreement over President Truman’s veto. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
- hef19898 3y agoLet me guess, unions were seen back then as a communist threat to national security, right?
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoSince the unions cooperate together this way, it looks like they can shut down whatever business they want to, especially since they can decide not to deliver packages and mail. Why should a union accept a company's terms at all? If you're powerful enough to shut down a business, what's stopping you from getting whatever you want, regardless of whether it's reasonable?
- guerrilla 3y ago> Why should a union accept a company's terms at all? So that people can get paid and produce goods and services for their society, obviously. > If you're powerful enough to shut down a business, what's stopping you from getting whatever you want, regardless of whether it's reasonable? Laws and contracts and as above the need for money and production, again, obviously.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoThe sympathy strikers don't risk losing pay, since they strike against someone other than their employer. Laws and contracts don't seem to be preventing the unions from shutting down Tesla's operation. The need for production doesn't seem to be preventing this either.
- rsanek 3y agoyou mean, just like companies have it in the US? they also cooperate, to do things like suppress wages or fix prices. what's stopping them from getting whatever they want?
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoWhat the unions are doing in Sweden are apparently legal. The US has laws to protect against the things you're talking about, such as the Sherman Act and FTC oversight.
- rsanek 3y agoMy perception is these laws are enforceable only in the most obvious of cases. It seems like you can go right up to the edge -- things like https://www.wired.com/story/silicon-valleys-exclusive-salary-database/ https://www.wired.com/story/silicon-valleys-exclusive-salary... or https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r... (we'll see on this one) come to mind.
- pfdietz 3y agoPerhaps Sweden will learn something about retaliation from the US on Swedish exports.
- worldsayshi 3y agoBecause Tesla doesn't want to make fair deals with its employees?
- hef19898 3y agoYou really think the US will go to a trade war with the EU over one of Musk tantrums?
- pfdietz 3y agoYou really think it wouldn't? I mean, the US could have Europe by the balls if it wants to. How much does it cost you all if we pull out of NATO? (I know Sweden is not in NATO.)
- jacquesm 3y agoWhat's NATO got to do with it? Really these are absurd statements. The US is tickled pink that Sweden finally joins NATO and three weeks later they go and drop out of NATO on account of a business dispute?
- hef19898 3y agoOver Tesla? No way! The US didn't even go nearly as far over the Boeing-Airbus disputes. Also, the EU countries field, between them and the UK, multiple aircraft carriers, nuclear subs (hunter-killer and ICBM ones), modern militaries (albeit smaller in size than during the cold war) and robust industrial base for basically everything. Surey the US quiting wouldn't be great, but it wpuld be an even worse self inflicted wound than Brexit. Unless Elon ends up POTUS (after all, in Demolition Man they passed an ammendment to allow Schwarzeneger to be elected, so ehy not?), the US won't do nothing over Tesla whatsoever, now or in the future.
- singlow 3y ago