6 ms·

It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disc

It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties. I can't stand Tesla/Musk but I would not be happy if this happened in my country. If state workers could simply refuse to deliver your mail, renew your drivers license, or let you into the airport because of a political reasons, it would no better than a dictatorship where the government itself did those things to suppress political enemies. You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business. Could the poll workers refuse to accepts ballots for a candidate they have a "labor action" against?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> incompatible with the rule of law This isn't a rule of law issue. If the courts issued a final ruling and the postal workers persisted, it would be.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of workers rights. This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > This is entirely their right I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use. > A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people This is counterproductive hyperbole.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      > This is counterproductive hyperbole. Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law." Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
        aaomidi 3y ago
        > But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"? I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__. Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    > This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      > Just the bad ones I assume? I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice. Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.
aaomidi 3y ago
The government’s sovereignty does not come before the ability of the workers to unionize. State workers are not discriminating against a person here. They’re discriminating against a huge company, one of the largest in the world. And no comparing the actions of workers to a dictatorship is legitimately insane. A dictatorship has virtually no involvement of actual people and citizens. A workers union does. You can not take away this right from workers without actually paving the path to a dictatorship or oligarchy.
hutzlibu 3y ago
"It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined" Maybe your concept of the law is not universal? It seems to be accepted behavior by swedish law, so it is within the rule of law.
- Gud 3y ago
  We don't know what. The ruling hasn't been made yet.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Corruption, Mafia, cartel, etc. control of legal processes seem to be accepted behavior (or were in the past) in some countries. Would you say that that's within the rule of law?
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    In which country was corruption or alike "accepted behavior" by law?
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      For centuries, Russian bureaucrats were expected – completely officially and under the law – to earn their living by extracting money from members of the local population directly, instead of through taxation going into a state budget. This was known as kormlenie. To populations elsewhere, such a system might meet their local definition of corruption.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        But then you can argue, that it is not corruption, but right of (primitive) taxation.
alibarber 3y ago
...or let you into the airport because of a political reasons Well actually, on the subject of airports and nordic labour movements: https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729 https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729 "The walkout is a political protest, permitted under collective agreements, and is not directed at employers or the current contract in the sector." I guess they have to pay for it though (in docked salary). But yes it is strange to me too.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont know how you could do a walkout for delivering to a single customer.
  - alibarber 3y ago
    Sorry this was a totally different thing, as an example to how Nordic labour movements may well be different to other parts of the world. Security workers at Helsinki airport walked out because they are not happy with the current elected government in Finland, not due to actions of their employer. This is a political protest and it is allowed.
WJW 3y ago
> You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business. This is indeed the point of a strike, yes. Which is allowed (under certain conditions) by Swedish law, particularly when it comes to labor conflicts. If Tesla wants to conduct business in Sweden, it'll have to cooperate with Swedish laborers. Those have more power than in the USA, but Tesla can always go elsewhere if it really cannot stomach paying its workers equivalent wages as other companies in Sweden.
tokai 3y ago
Not in scandinavia. It's how the labor market is organized and its working great. I don't remember how it is in Sweden, but the relationship between employees and employers, how they can negotiate, and what kind of means they can subject the other part to, is enshrined in law, and so strikes that looks like this one in Sweden can easily be lawful.
emptysongglass 3y ago
> It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties. Whose law? Yours? This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company. EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark. This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough. The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse. I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider. Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? Should police be able to boycott calls from people they oppose?
  - emptysongglass 3y ago
    > Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider. You're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? But this isn't comparable. Nobody has a right to register their car when they want. It's economic harm being caused in a precedented manner. Ignorance of the history of a country's customs and laws doesn't exempt you from them. In America, national security is the precedented equivalent. If a postal worker suspects something dangerous is being transmitted, they're absolutely allowed to use individual discretion to delay or even suspend delivery. This is loosely codified, but not to the level of an individual driver. In Sweden, labour disputes are similarly elevated in a way that is precedented.
mrmanner 3y ago
I think the courts agree with you: There are two cases, one against the government agency registering vehicles and this one against Postnord, a company co-owned by the governments of Denmark and Sweden. Both cases are still pending, but: In the former case, the court order an injunction(?) forcing the government agency to release plates through other means than post. In the latter, the company Postnord was not immediately forced to act. IANAL, but the subtle difference between “the government” and “government owned company” seems relevant.
cycomanic 3y ago
Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action. Maybe if the postal services had not been privatised (and employees loosing a bunch of privileges) I'd be sympathetic. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights. Infrastructure and communication with governments needs to be regulated and open to everyone, that is a basic freedom that has to be respected for a country to be free. If you have a road toll and refuse to service certain cars and thus efficiently putting them in a prison then I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation You and I aren't Swedish. (EDIT: Nvm!) This is how the Swedish labor model has worked for decades. By all practical measures, it works. This was a stupid fight to pick because it's unwinnable. If Tesla prevails in the courts, they will get hit harder by the political system. Driving a Tesla will become a political statement. I'm not sure if there is a good way to back down other than franchising Tesla's Swedish business to a local partner.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > You and I aren't Swedish I am Swedish.
    - 3y ago
K0nserv 3y ago
As others have mentioned PostNord is owned jointly with the Danish government so it's not quite a government services, well the postal delivery is, but the mechanism that achieves it, PostNord, is not. I think you are also missing something else here. The government could break contracts with PostNord and have some other company take on the responsibility for the service, but in the Swedish political climate this would be a terrible idea and the government would haemorrhage voters if it did this. Not to mention the fact that whatever company it got to take over the services would have unionised workers, who would, undoubtedly, continue the action against Tesla.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> incompatible with the rule of law This isn't a rule of law issue. If the courts issued a final ruling and the postal workers persisted, it would be.

aaomidi 3y ago
Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of workers rights. This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > This is entirely their right I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use. > A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people This is counterproductive hyperbole.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    > This is counterproductive hyperbole. Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law." Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        > But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"? I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__. Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    > Just the bad ones I assume? I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice. Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.

aaomidi 3y ago

The government’s sovereignty does not come before the ability of the workers to unionize. State workers are not discriminating against a person here. They’re discriminating against a huge company, one of the largest in the world. And no comparing the actions of workers to a dictatorship is legitimately insane. A dictatorship has virtually no involvement of actual people and citizens. A workers union does. You can not take away this right from workers without actually paving the path to a dictatorship or oligarchy.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined" Maybe your concept of the law is not universal? It seems to be accepted behavior by swedish law, so it is within the rule of law.

Gud 3y ago
We don't know what. The ruling hasn't been made yet.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Corruption, Mafia, cartel, etc. control of legal processes seem to be accepted behavior (or were in the past) in some countries. Would you say that that's within the rule of law?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  In which country was corruption or alike "accepted behavior" by law?
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    For centuries, Russian bureaucrats were expected – completely officially and under the law – to earn their living by extracting money from members of the local population directly, instead of through taxation going into a state budget. This was known as kormlenie. To populations elsewhere, such a system might meet their local definition of corruption.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      But then you can argue, that it is not corruption, but right of (primitive) taxation.

alibarber 3y ago

...or let you into the airport because of a political reasons Well actually, on the subject of airports and nordic labour movements: https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729 https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729 "The walkout is a political protest, permitted under collective agreements, and is not directed at employers or the current contract in the sector." I guess they have to pay for it though (in docked salary). But yes it is strange to me too.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont know how you could do a walkout for delivering to a single customer.
- alibarber 3y ago
  Sorry this was a totally different thing, as an example to how Nordic labour movements may well be different to other parts of the world. Security workers at Helsinki airport walked out because they are not happy with the current elected government in Finland, not due to actions of their employer. This is a political protest and it is allowed.

WJW 3y ago

> You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business. This is indeed the point of a strike, yes. Which is allowed (under certain conditions) by Swedish law, particularly when it comes to labor conflicts. If Tesla wants to conduct business in Sweden, it'll have to cooperate with Swedish laborers. Those have more power than in the USA, but Tesla can always go elsewhere if it really cannot stomach paying its workers equivalent wages as other companies in Sweden.

tokai 3y ago

Not in scandinavia. It's how the labor market is organized and its working great. I don't remember how it is in Sweden, but the relationship between employees and employers, how they can negotiate, and what kind of means they can subject the other part to, is enshrined in law, and so strikes that looks like this one in Sweden can easily be lawful.

emptysongglass 3y ago

> It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties. Whose law? Yours? This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company. EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark. This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough. The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse. I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider. Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? Should police be able to boycott calls from people they oppose?
- emptysongglass 3y ago
  > Postnord is a 100% government owned service provider. You're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? But this isn't comparable. Nobody has a right to register their car when they want. It's economic harm being caused in a precedented manner. Ignorance of the history of a country's customs and laws doesn't exempt you from them. In America, national security is the precedented equivalent. If a postal worker suspects something dangerous is being transmitted, they're absolutely allowed to use individual discretion to delay or even suspend delivery. This is loosely codified, but not to the level of an individual driver. In Sweden, labour disputes are similarly elevated in a way that is precedented.

mrmanner 3y ago

I think the courts agree with you: There are two cases, one against the government agency registering vehicles and this one against Postnord, a company co-owned by the governments of Denmark and Sweden. Both cases are still pending, but: In the former case, the court order an injunction(?) forcing the government agency to release plates through other means than post. In the latter, the company Postnord was not immediately forced to act. IANAL, but the subtle difference between “the government” and “government owned company” seems relevant.

cycomanic 3y ago

Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action. Maybe if the postal services had not been privatised (and employees loosing a bunch of privileges) I'd be sympathetic. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.

Jensson 3y ago
> On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights. Infrastructure and communication with governments needs to be regulated and open to everyone, that is a basic freedom that has to be respected for a country to be free. If you have a road toll and refuse to service certain cars and thus efficiently putting them in a prison then I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation You and I aren't Swedish. (EDIT: Nvm!) This is how the Swedish labor model has worked for decades. By all practical measures, it works. This was a stupid fight to pick because it's unwinnable. If Tesla prevails in the courts, they will get hit harder by the political system. Driving a Tesla will become a political statement. I'm not sure if there is a good way to back down other than franchising Tesla's Swedish business to a local partner.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > You and I aren't Swedish I am Swedish.
  - 3y ago

K0nserv 3y ago

As others have mentioned PostNord is owned jointly with the Danish government so it's not quite a government services, well the postal delivery is, but the mechanism that achieves it, PostNord, is not. I think you are also missing something else here. The government could break contracts with PostNord and have some other company take on the responsibility for the service, but in the Swedish political climate this would be a terrible idea and the government would haemorrhage voters if it did this. Not to mention the fact that whatever company it got to take over the services would have unionised workers, who would, undoubtedly, continue the action against Tesla.