4 ms·

Tesla is hoping that this will be settled by the EU, not Sweden. A lot of swedes are looking at this situation through a moral lens rather than a legal one (als

by apienx 3y ago

Tesla is hoping that this will be settled by the EU, not Sweden. A lot of swedes are looking at this situation through a moral lens rather than a legal one (also, union membership figures are steadily declining). This will likely end up in reform.

amarant 3y ago
I mean it might, but then again it might not. Tesla is far from the only company in Sweden that doesn't have a collective bargaining deal in place, in fact it's quite common to not have one. This is supported by the Swedish model. I think if the unions had more Tesla employees on their side, Tesla would be forced to sign in short order, but they don't seem interested. Exact numbers are hard to come by since the union refuse to disclose them, but indications are something like 90% of Tesla employees are still going to work, despite the unions offer of 130% compensation for strikers from day one, even from workers who wasn't previously members of the Union. this is very unusual for a union to be this generous, usually they offer 80% pay, and workers join the strike because they want to improve their workplace. In this case it seems workers actually don't want the collective bargain, only the union wants it. Honestly nobody is looking very good in this mess, not Tesla, not IF Metal, and I think this is a pretty clear view of the dark side of the Swedish model (unions are so powerful they can ignore workers, which is just weird) Personally I think the Swedish model is mostly good, but like all things, it could be improved. For example I'm not sure it's a great idea to have the unions be responsible for unemployment benefits, they've been leveraging that to force unwilling workers to strike, which I think is kind of overstepping a bit, and makes me wonder if working conditions are really what IF Metal is even worried about here. Unions being powerful is mostly a good thing, but there needs to be some checks on that power, or it'll be misused eventually. And I'm starting to wonder if "eventually" is actually "now". Maybe some kind of rule where you can't start a strike against a company unless you have the support of at least 30% of the workforce in that company? I dunno, I think the unions need to be more convincing to the workers here, since they don't seem to have their support. Then again, they currently don't need it!

by apienx 3y ago

amarant 3y ago

I mean it might, but then again it might not. Tesla is far from the only company in Sweden that doesn't have a collective bargaining deal in place, in fact it's quite common to not have one. This is supported by the Swedish model. I think if the unions had more Tesla employees on their side, Tesla would be forced to sign in short order, but they don't seem interested. Exact numbers are hard to come by since the union refuse to disclose them, but indications are something like 90% of Tesla employees are still going to work, despite the unions offer of 130% compensation for strikers from day one, even from workers who wasn't previously members of the Union. this is very unusual for a union to be this generous, usually they offer 80% pay, and workers join the strike because they want to improve their workplace. In this case it seems workers actually don't want the collective bargain, only the union wants it. Honestly nobody is looking very good in this mess, not Tesla, not IF Metal, and I think this is a pretty clear view of the dark side of the Swedish model (unions are so powerful they can ignore workers, which is just weird) Personally I think the Swedish model is mostly good, but like all things, it could be improved. For example I'm not sure it's a great idea to have the unions be responsible for unemployment benefits, they've been leveraging that to force unwilling workers to strike, which I think is kind of overstepping a bit, and makes me wonder if working conditions are really what IF Metal is even worried about here. Unions being powerful is mostly a good thing, but there needs to be some checks on that power, or it'll be misused eventually. And I'm starting to wonder if "eventually" is actually "now". Maybe some kind of rule where you can't start a strike against a company unless you have the support of at least 30% of the workforce in that company? I dunno, I think the unions need to be more convincing to the workers here, since they don't seem to have their support. Then again, they currently don't need it!