4 ms·

Most of this goes back to the "Saltsjöbaden Agreement", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6bade

by vodou 3y ago

Most of this goes back to the "Saltsjöbaden Agreement", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement. To quote myself from the other day: "Basically, the government has left to the industry and unions to agree on a lot of stuff that is decided by law in other countries. E.g. Sweden does not have a minimum wage. This system has led to much fewer costly conflicts and strikes compared to many other countries for almost a century."

logifail 3y ago
> has left to the industry and unions to agree on a lot of stuff (From the outside) it seems hard to understand why something should be effectively be mandatory without being officially mandatory. If collective agreements are to be mandatory, the government should just pass a law making them mandatory, then that's done. Hiding behind the claim "it's up to each employer and their employees" to decide is just silly.
- mattlutze 3y ago
  Counterpoint: if something pretty much works without a law being in place, why write a law? Laws are never perfect, and writing one just for the sake of it both makes complying with the law more complex and opens opportunities for people with money to create legal moats around interpretations and case law precedence.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > Counterpoint: if something pretty much works without a law being in place, why write a law? Well, I'll see that and raise you: If remuneration packages at Tesla (including in Scandinavia) "pretty much works" (in the sense that Tesla are able to attract and retain talent, which they apparently are), why write a collective bargaining agreement?
    - RestlessMind 3y ago
      Because they are working in the short term. Once corporations find a wedge, it's only a matter of time before they exploit it and reduce wages over the long run. I a glad that unions are taking a long view on this matter.
- martin8412 3y ago
  It's essentially mandatory unless you provide better terms on your own. If the unions want a CBA in that case, it doesn't change a single thing. You sign and nothing changes. Tesla claims to provide better than the CBA but openly refuses to sign which doesn't pass the smell test. Tesla wants to punish anyone who joins a union which is super illegal. We're talking prison time if they don't back down. They can't take away the stock benefit when IF Metall wins. They've put it out there, and if they take it away because of unionisation, they'll lose. It's a huge fucking no.

by vodou 3y ago

logifail 3y ago

> has left to the industry and unions to agree on a lot of stuff (From the outside) it seems hard to understand why something should be effectively be mandatory without being officially mandatory. If collective agreements are to be mandatory, the government should just pass a law making them mandatory, then that's done. Hiding behind the claim "it's up to each employer and their employees" to decide is just silly.

mattlutze 3y ago
Counterpoint: if something pretty much works without a law being in place, why write a law? Laws are never perfect, and writing one just for the sake of it both makes complying with the law more complex and opens opportunities for people with money to create legal moats around interpretations and case law precedence.
- logifail 3y ago
  > Counterpoint: if something pretty much works without a law being in place, why write a law? Well, I'll see that and raise you: If remuneration packages at Tesla (including in Scandinavia) "pretty much works" (in the sense that Tesla are able to attract and retain talent, which they apparently are), why write a collective bargaining agreement?
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    Because they are working in the short term. Once corporations find a wedge, it's only a matter of time before they exploit it and reduce wages over the long run. I a glad that unions are taking a long view on this matter.
martin8412 3y ago
It's essentially mandatory unless you provide better terms on your own. If the unions want a CBA in that case, it doesn't change a single thing. You sign and nothing changes. Tesla claims to provide better than the CBA but openly refuses to sign which doesn't pass the smell test. Tesla wants to punish anyone who joins a union which is super illegal. We're talking prison time if they don't back down. They can't take away the stock benefit when IF Metall wins. They've put it out there, and if they take it away because of unionisation, they'll lose. It's a huge fucking no.