6 ms·

Meanwhile, statement from the Union: https://www.arbetaren.se/2023/11/13/if-metall-strejkkassan-racker-i-500-ar/ https://www.arbetaren.se/2023/11/13/if-metall-s

Meanwhile, statement from the Union: https://www.arbetaren.se/2023/11/13/if-metall-strejkkassan-racker-i-500-ar/ https://www.arbetaren.se/2023/11/13/if-metall-strejkkassan-r... "Our strike fund is enough to keep this up for 500 years."

whalesalad 3y ago
On one hand, that is epic. On the other hand, it means the union has leached a monumental amount of capital out of the workers and industries they are involved with. A union should not have that much cash in the bank.
- standardUser 3y ago
  Are we suddenly in the business of deciding who should have how much money? Because if so, we clearly need to deal with the individual billionaires long, long before we work our way down to any unions.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    Unions are an abstraction, a necessary evil. They are not designed to be profitable in the same way a capitalist is.
    - standardUser 3y ago
      Corporations are an abstraction. Groups of workers however have always existed, have always comprised the vast majority of people in societies and have always had shared interests.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > A union should not have that much cash in the bank. Why not? They've clearly been able to leverage it to negotiate better terms for their members. Their members are better off for the union having the warchest.
- Jensson 3y ago
  That is the fund for the whole nation, they can keep strikes up forever since the strike is just a small part of their workers. This is how unions can compete with capital and politicians on an equal ground.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Why not? Is there something wrong with workers pooling and leveraging their economic assets in pursuit of their own interests?
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > leached We should use this term more often against the corporations exploiting the workers. I am somewhat ambivalent towards unions - they can sometimes be a blessing or a curse to the workers. It really needs some regulation to ensure they serve the workers rather than serving the ones willing to play union politics. But I am not at all ambivalent on corporations. Their only mandate is profit, and they will exploit (i.e.: leech from) workers as much as they can. It's their mandate, the very thing they exist to do.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    What I mean is that having a runway where your union members can do literally nothing for 500 years and continue to get paid would suggest there is a monumental amount of cash sitting in a bank. I agree that unions need a rainy day fund, but this seems egregious. If they had said 10 or 20 years, that would make more sense to me.
    - evancox100 3y ago
      It's likely that not every union member is striking, it is probably a sectoral union, e.g. the Swedish Dockworkers Union. There is still a lot of other dock-work to do besides unload Teslas, one would assume. So the union has 500 years of funds but that's for some small fraction of the workers.
  - ajhurliman 3y ago
    Somehow they never seem to have 500 years of payroll though
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      Of course they don't. The profits would be directed to those that own it. I've worked for companies whose CEO had wealth that was way higher than 500x my yearly salary. And even still, that was a misinterpretation on your part. It is a partial strike, only against Tesla. The dockworkers are still servicing other companies.
- moogly 3y ago
  Or it means that full-blown strikes are actually pretty rare in Sweden due to... <checks notes> ...collective bargaining agreements.
- SauciestGNU 3y ago
  It's an arms race, they need parity with the industry so they can't be starved out.
- piva00 3y ago
  There are ~250k members of IF Metall, that makes it US$ 4k per member. That isn't a monumental amount of capital to ensure worker protections when needed, how do you think the union could keep a strike if it doesn't have money in the piggybank to cover members salaries if required? Please, don't be a corporation apologist.

whalesalad 3y ago

On one hand, that is epic. On the other hand, it means the union has leached a monumental amount of capital out of the workers and industries they are involved with. A union should not have that much cash in the bank.

standardUser 3y ago
Are we suddenly in the business of deciding who should have how much money? Because if so, we clearly need to deal with the individual billionaires long, long before we work our way down to any unions.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  Unions are an abstraction, a necessary evil. They are not designed to be profitable in the same way a capitalist is.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Corporations are an abstraction. Groups of workers however have always existed, have always comprised the vast majority of people in societies and have always had shared interests.
arcticbull 3y ago
> A union should not have that much cash in the bank. Why not? They've clearly been able to leverage it to negotiate better terms for their members. Their members are better off for the union having the warchest.
Jensson 3y ago
That is the fund for the whole nation, they can keep strikes up forever since the strike is just a small part of their workers. This is how unions can compete with capital and politicians on an equal ground.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Why not? Is there something wrong with workers pooling and leveraging their economic assets in pursuit of their own interests?
surgical_fire 3y ago
> leached We should use this term more often against the corporations exploiting the workers. I am somewhat ambivalent towards unions - they can sometimes be a blessing or a curse to the workers. It really needs some regulation to ensure they serve the workers rather than serving the ones willing to play union politics. But I am not at all ambivalent on corporations. Their only mandate is profit, and they will exploit (i.e.: leech from) workers as much as they can. It's their mandate, the very thing they exist to do.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  What I mean is that having a runway where your union members can do literally nothing for 500 years and continue to get paid would suggest there is a monumental amount of cash sitting in a bank. I agree that unions need a rainy day fund, but this seems egregious. If they had said 10 or 20 years, that would make more sense to me.
  - evancox100 3y ago
    It's likely that not every union member is striking, it is probably a sectoral union, e.g. the Swedish Dockworkers Union. There is still a lot of other dock-work to do besides unload Teslas, one would assume. So the union has 500 years of funds but that's for some small fraction of the workers.
- ajhurliman 3y ago
  Somehow they never seem to have 500 years of payroll though
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    Of course they don't. The profits would be directed to those that own it. I've worked for companies whose CEO had wealth that was way higher than 500x my yearly salary. And even still, that was a misinterpretation on your part. It is a partial strike, only against Tesla. The dockworkers are still servicing other companies.
moogly 3y ago
Or it means that full-blown strikes are actually pretty rare in Sweden due to... <checks notes> ...collective bargaining agreements.
SauciestGNU 3y ago
It's an arms race, they need parity with the industry so they can't be starved out.
piva00 3y ago
There are ~250k members of IF Metall, that makes it US$ 4k per member. That isn't a monumental amount of capital to ensure worker protections when needed, how do you think the union could keep a strike if it doesn't have money in the piggybank to cover members salaries if required? Please, don't be a corporation apologist.