10 ms·

Doesn’t matter. Even when you’re fully owned by a government, unionization allows you to do this. This is what unionization is, protects the worker regardless

Doesn’t matter. Even when you’re fully owned by a government, unionization allows you to do this. This is what unionization is, protects the worker regardless of your employer.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Unionization shouldn't be there to disrupt another company. It should be there so you can bargain against your employer. This seems really inappropriate.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Unionization shouldn't be there to disrupt another company. It should be there so you can bargain against your employer. That's what Tesla's employees are doing. The point of a sympathetic strike is so that a small country's workforce can stand up to the likes of Tesla. Tesla can always withdraw from the Nordic market if they don't like the rules (which never changed). They don't want to do that because there is something there worth negotiating for.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But it's not a sympathetic strike. They're refusing to deliver Tesla's mail. They aren't striking against their employer.
    - 93po 3y ago
      Their refusal to deliver mail can be viewed as a partial strike I guess
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      They are increasing the pressure on a company which is not treating their workers well and fairly. These workers are friends, wives, husbands, relatives… It’s more than justified.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        You're missing the point. I'm not debating the validity of whether people should leave Tesla and go work somewhere else. I'm saying that it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer. A strike - whether because of your circumstances or another's - is you downing tools and stopping working.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer...a strike...is you downing tools and stopping working This hasn't been what a strike has meant in Scandinavia for a century. I'm American. I broadly think unions are ineffective and corrupt. But it's ridiculous to claim this strike is unprecedented. Even the pattern of an American company being flummoxed by it is deeply precedented. If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process. That doesn't capitulation. It doesn't even mean you must enter into one. But you can't blow it off, and at that so dismissively.
        peterfirefly 3y ago
        > If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process. And if you want to do business in many other countries, you have to pay bribes -- or campaign contributions or hire someone's incompetent nephew or hire people with the right "discriminated against" skin colour. That's not legal, either.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Are you seriously comparing collective bargaining with bribing officials?
        bayindirh 3y ago
        No, I’m not. I’m on mobile, and failed to convey my message. What I tried to say is, postal workers are increasing pressure on a company which is treating their workers unfairly, and these workers are connected to the postal workers in a way. So, what postal workers are doing is justified.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it's not a sympathetic strike...They aren't striking against their employer. You're defining a sympathetic strike. I don't have a view on whether this is justified. What I'll contest is that it was unforeseeable. It was obvious a refusal to negotiate would infuriate--it's happened dozens of times, almost always with American companies, and it's close to an element of national and regional pride at this point. It wasn't a certainty, but there was a definite risk of it escalating across Sweden. And from there it was and is a virtual certainty that it would spread across Scandinavia, and from there will across the Nordic countries and eventually Northern Europe. This is a stupid molehill to die on for Tesla. They should bite the bullet and devolve Swedish operations to a local franchise who can enter into a collective-bargaing agreement .
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Probably, yes they should. Clearly Elon Musk has never seen The Godfather!
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        Or can't decide which role he's playing. :-)
    - babypuncher 3y ago
      I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "sympathetic strike".
- distances 3y ago
  On the contrary, it's a crucial part of collective bargaining. You have to be large enough to bargain effectively. Companies in the Nordics aren't alone either, they have employers' organizations where a whole sector of employers band together to bargain with the unions. These discussions then produce collective agreements that bind the whole sector for a given timespan. It might sound alien to some, but it has guaranteed stable work conditions and a dedicated workforce for a century already.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm not saying they shouldn't go on strike. I'm saying that they aren't on strike, as they're still working. Refusing to service one customer isn't striking.
    - distances 3y ago
      It's just one company that doesn't play ball so a full strike wouldn't be appropriate reaction, especially as employers' organization apparently isn't a participant here. Say, striking dockworkers can paralyze the whole economy, all sectors. It's not a step to be taken lightly.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It's not just one company "not playing ball". Spotify, with ten times as many affected employees in Sweden, also doesn't have an agreement. > It's not a step to be taken lightly. Well, there's no balancing downside to doing it this way. Workers still get paid. So they can do this pretty lightly, assuming their employers allow them to just discriminate against certain customers.
        martin8412 3y ago
        The unions don't go after companies that provide better than CBA to all employees. I don't know if that's the case with Spotify though.
- yxhuvud 3y ago
  And protection against that is one of the things a company gains by making a collective agreement with a union. Without such an agreement, it is a grand melee between companies and unions.
- yxhuvud 3y ago
  The problem is exactly that Tesla refuses to bargain with the union. Once you are dealing with the unions you will be safe from sympathetic strikes.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  It seems like the people of the country were willing to do business with Tesla, but elmu refused to negotiate the terms under which the business would be done. No negotiation = no terms = no business. If this is what elmu wants, so be it. The people of the country will continue deciding how to run their country without this particular arrogant rich narcissist.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I don't understand - haven't the people to do the work already been hired? Wasn't business already being done? This is a post-hoc change to the agreed terms of employment by the employees.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I would be happy to help you understand. Two concepts at play here, which are important to understand, are sympathy strikes (I'll leave it to you to check out the term and read up on the logic behind the action) and precedent setting (the people of the country don't wish to set a precedent of employers refusing to collectively bargain with workers).
riversflow 3y ago
We should unioninze the military.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  See https://euromil.org/our-members/ https://euromil.org/our-members/ for the European military unions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Doesn’t matter. Even when you’re fully owned by a government, unionization allows you to do this. This is what unionization is, protects the worker regardless of your employer.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Unionization shouldn't be there to disrupt another company. It should be there so you can bargain against your employer. This seems really inappropriate.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Unionization shouldn't be there to disrupt another company. It should be there so you can bargain against your employer. That's what Tesla's employees are doing. The point of a sympathetic strike is so that a small country's workforce can stand up to the likes of Tesla. Tesla can always withdraw from the Nordic market if they don't like the rules (which never changed). They don't want to do that because there is something there worth negotiating for.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But it's not a sympathetic strike. They're refusing to deliver Tesla's mail. They aren't striking against their employer.
  - 93po 3y ago
    Their refusal to deliver mail can be viewed as a partial strike I guess
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    They are increasing the pressure on a company which is not treating their workers well and fairly. These workers are friends, wives, husbands, relatives… It’s more than justified.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You're missing the point. I'm not debating the validity of whether people should leave Tesla and go work somewhere else. I'm saying that it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer. A strike - whether because of your circumstances or another's - is you downing tools and stopping working.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer...a strike...is you downing tools and stopping working This hasn't been what a strike has meant in Scandinavia for a century. I'm American. I broadly think unions are ineffective and corrupt. But it's ridiculous to claim this strike is unprecedented. Even the pattern of an American company being flummoxed by it is deeply precedented. If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process. That doesn't capitulation. It doesn't even mean you must enter into one. But you can't blow it off, and at that so dismissively.
        peterfirefly 3y ago
        > If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process. And if you want to do business in many other countries, you have to pay bribes -- or campaign contributions or hire someone's incompetent nephew or hire people with the right "discriminated against" skin colour. That's not legal, either.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Are you seriously comparing collective bargaining with bribing officials?
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        No, I’m not. I’m on mobile, and failed to convey my message. What I tried to say is, postal workers are increasing pressure on a company which is treating their workers unfairly, and these workers are connected to the postal workers in a way. So, what postal workers are doing is justified.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > it's not a sympathetic strike...They aren't striking against their employer. You're defining a sympathetic strike. I don't have a view on whether this is justified. What I'll contest is that it was unforeseeable. It was obvious a refusal to negotiate would infuriate--it's happened dozens of times, almost always with American companies, and it's close to an element of national and regional pride at this point. It wasn't a certainty, but there was a definite risk of it escalating across Sweden. And from there it was and is a virtual certainty that it would spread across Scandinavia, and from there will across the Nordic countries and eventually Northern Europe. This is a stupid molehill to die on for Tesla. They should bite the bullet and devolve Swedish operations to a local franchise who can enter into a collective-bargaing agreement .
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Probably, yes they should. Clearly Elon Musk has never seen The Godfather!
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Or can't decide which role he's playing. :-)
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "sympathetic strike".
distances 3y ago
On the contrary, it's a crucial part of collective bargaining. You have to be large enough to bargain effectively. Companies in the Nordics aren't alone either, they have employers' organizations where a whole sector of employers band together to bargain with the unions. These discussions then produce collective agreements that bind the whole sector for a given timespan. It might sound alien to some, but it has guaranteed stable work conditions and a dedicated workforce for a century already.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't go on strike. I'm saying that they aren't on strike, as they're still working. Refusing to service one customer isn't striking.
  - distances 3y ago
    It's just one company that doesn't play ball so a full strike wouldn't be appropriate reaction, especially as employers' organization apparently isn't a participant here. Say, striking dockworkers can paralyze the whole economy, all sectors. It's not a step to be taken lightly.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's not just one company "not playing ball". Spotify, with ten times as many affected employees in Sweden, also doesn't have an agreement. > It's not a step to be taken lightly. Well, there's no balancing downside to doing it this way. Workers still get paid. So they can do this pretty lightly, assuming their employers allow them to just discriminate against certain customers.
      - martin8412 3y ago
        The unions don't go after companies that provide better than CBA to all employees. I don't know if that's the case with Spotify though.
yxhuvud 3y ago
And protection against that is one of the things a company gains by making a collective agreement with a union. Without such an agreement, it is a grand melee between companies and unions.
yxhuvud 3y ago
The problem is exactly that Tesla refuses to bargain with the union. Once you are dealing with the unions you will be safe from sympathetic strikes.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
It seems like the people of the country were willing to do business with Tesla, but elmu refused to negotiate the terms under which the business would be done. No negotiation = no terms = no business. If this is what elmu wants, so be it. The people of the country will continue deciding how to run their country without this particular arrogant rich narcissist.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I don't understand - haven't the people to do the work already been hired? Wasn't business already being done? This is a post-hoc change to the agreed terms of employment by the employees.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I would be happy to help you understand. Two concepts at play here, which are important to understand, are sympathy strikes (I'll leave it to you to check out the term and read up on the logic behind the action) and precedent setting (the people of the country don't wish to set a precedent of employers refusing to collectively bargain with workers).

riversflow 3y ago

We should unioninze the military.

Symbiote 3y ago
See https://euromil.org/our-members/ https://euromil.org/our-members/ for the European military unions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]