3 ms·

Hypotheticals are irrelevant. Sweden has had this system for 75 years.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>Hypotheticals are irrelevant. You don't get to decide what I think is relevant. I dont think the current system in Sweden is relevant to the question of if tokai think Judges should be able to boycott cases. The fact that the current system has existed for 75 years doesn't even mean anything about the postnord case (which hasnt been decided) or if the Swedish government is required to ensure equal accesses to government services or law.
- Hikikomori 3y ago
  We can make up hypotheticals to make anything look bad all day, doesn't make them likely to happen. A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something. There's no discrimination happening here as Tesla is not a protected group that is covered by this. The right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined in Swedens constitution. The government is very hands off when it comes to labour disputes. PostNord is a government owned private company, their employees are not working for the state.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something. The postal service hasn't had a private operator for long, so this situation wasn't possible until recently.
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      Well we have precedent on this before it was a private operator, presumably it easier now that they're not even state employees. In the 90s we had a similar situation with Toys R Us and the SEKO union which Posten employees were part of joined the sympathy strike and stopped delivering mail to them. Edit: Seems like Posten became a company the same year. So during that strike they may not have been state employees. Still a precedent though.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That's all beside the point. What do you think tokai's position on judge strikes is? Do you have a position on Judge strikes? OR are you trying to talk about something else?
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a danger in society. Dont know if that would apply to judges. But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that. The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute. The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1. My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met. I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service
        Hikikomori 3y ago
        >Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions. In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.

>Hypotheticals are irrelevant. You don't get to decide what I think is relevant. I dont think the current system in Sweden is relevant to the question of if tokai think Judges should be able to boycott cases. The fact that the current system has existed for 75 years doesn't even mean anything about the postnord case (which hasnt been decided) or if the Swedish government is required to ensure equal accesses to government services or law.

Hikikomori 3y ago
We can make up hypotheticals to make anything look bad all day, doesn't make them likely to happen. A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something. There's no discrimination happening here as Tesla is not a protected group that is covered by this. The right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined in Swedens constitution. The government is very hands off when it comes to labour disputes. PostNord is a government owned private company, their employees are not working for the state.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something. The postal service hasn't had a private operator for long, so this situation wasn't possible until recently.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    Well we have precedent on this before it was a private operator, presumably it easier now that they're not even state employees. In the 90s we had a similar situation with Toys R Us and the SEKO union which Posten employees were part of joined the sympathy strike and stopped delivering mail to them. Edit: Seems like Posten became a company the same year. So during that strike they may not have been state employees. Still a precedent though.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That's all beside the point. What do you think tokai's position on judge strikes is? Do you have a position on Judge strikes? OR are you trying to talk about something else?
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a danger in society. Dont know if that would apply to judges. But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that. The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute. The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1. My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met. I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service
      - Hikikomori 3y ago
        >Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions. In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.