6 ms·

Is PostNord like the post office or like fedex? If the former, that seems crazy to me. Imagine the post office just refused to deliver your electricity bill des

by hiatus 3y ago

Is PostNord like the post office or like fedex? If the former, that seems crazy to me. Imagine the post office just refused to deliver your electricity bill despite the electric company paying for a stamp. If it's the latter it makes a lot more sense.

TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago
They are the national postal service, successor to the old Posten AB (which just means “The Post, Ltd”), and before that Postverket (“The Post Agency”). There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).
- hiatus 3y ago
  > There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees). Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    No, as most USPS employees are considered "quasi-federal" employees and US law prohibits any federal employees from striking. They can protest and have some of the usual Union protections but striking can lead to them being fired, fined, or imprisoned. As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The USPS has a "universal service obligation", so no. The US postal strike of 1970 (which I hadn't heard of before) was apparently illegal, but when a huge number of people perform an illegal act it's often not in the government interest to fire them, but to instead negotiate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of... : President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]
- mongol 3y ago
  What I find strange is that when a subset of employees strike, PostNord doesn't feel obligated to deliver at all, even though they have employees that are not part of the union and are not covered by the strike. This while PostNord has legal obligations to deliver mail. Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal. I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago
    Striking is a constitutionally protected right in Sweden. The belief of PostNord is that the right of their employees to strike weighs higher than PostNord's obligation to deliver mail.
    - mongol 3y ago
      Not that simple. RF states striking as a protected right for an association of employees. It is not an individually protected right. "Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "
      - VoxPelli 3y ago
        Which is what it is in this case, a union which strikes
      - zdhgbdthdtv 3y ago
        > Not that simple. It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same: > "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1] 1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i-rattstvist/ https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...
tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
It's the people who are on strike, not the company. Are people where you live not allowed to go on strike?
- hiatus 3y ago
  So you are okay with, say, the individuals of a fire department deciding not to put out a fire because they don't like someone? This is a public service we are talking about here.
  - VoxPelli 3y ago
    Arbitrary discrimination can’t be compared to organized union strikes?
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Why is one arbitrary and the other not? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Because it relates to a labor dispute?
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Because it is based on pre-stated principles, which the other party is capable of fulfilling. This makes it non-arbitrary.
        hiatus 3y ago
        I don't understand how my statement of firemen refusing to put out a fire because they didn't like the person is arbitrary. If they publicly stated they do not like the person because of their politics and will refuse to put out fires for anyone supporting that party does that make it okay to not put out a fire on their house?
VoxPelli 3y ago
Both, unlike in the US the Swedish post office is privatized and handled by multiple companies, eg Citymail also offers postal services. PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use. PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services. But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important
- hiatus 3y ago
  I am surprised that in this case Swedes value individual rights over their duty to the public.
  - Novosell 3y ago
    Their "duty to the public" being to deliver license plates to Tesla? Really?
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Their duty is to deliver mail is it not? Should mail carriers refuse to deliver political flyers because they disagree with the message??
      - flusensieb 3y ago
        Political flyers seem like something very different to license plates. The court might decide differently under different circumstances.
      - Novosell 3y ago
        It's not just random postal workers doing it though, it's union members doing it as part of a sympathy strike. And surely every workers "duty" is their job, so then no striking should be allowed? Or should only complete strikes be allowed? Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.
      - 3y ago
fl7305 3y ago
Imagine a country where there is a law against private companies delivering mail to your mailbox? Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No? Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by hiatus 3y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago

They are the national postal service, successor to the old Posten AB (which just means “The Post, Ltd”), and before that Postverket (“The Post Agency”). There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).

hiatus 3y ago
> There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees). Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  No, as most USPS employees are considered "quasi-federal" employees and US law prohibits any federal employees from striking. They can protest and have some of the usual Union protections but striking can lead to them being fired, fined, or imprisoned. As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  The USPS has a "universal service obligation", so no. The US postal strike of 1970 (which I hadn't heard of before) was apparently illegal, but when a huge number of people perform an illegal act it's often not in the government interest to fire them, but to instead negotiate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of... : President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]
mongol 3y ago
What I find strange is that when a subset of employees strike, PostNord doesn't feel obligated to deliver at all, even though they have employees that are not part of the union and are not covered by the strike. This while PostNord has legal obligations to deliver mail. Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal. I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.
- TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago
  Striking is a constitutionally protected right in Sweden. The belief of PostNord is that the right of their employees to strike weighs higher than PostNord's obligation to deliver mail.
  - mongol 3y ago
    Not that simple. RF states striking as a protected right for an association of employees. It is not an individually protected right. "Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "
    - VoxPelli 3y ago
      Which is what it is in this case, a union which strikes
    - zdhgbdthdtv 3y ago
      > Not that simple. It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same: > "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1] 1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i-rattstvist/ https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...

tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago

It's the people who are on strike, not the company. Are people where you live not allowed to go on strike?

hiatus 3y ago
So you are okay with, say, the individuals of a fire department deciding not to put out a fire because they don't like someone? This is a public service we are talking about here.
- VoxPelli 3y ago
  Arbitrary discrimination can’t be compared to organized union strikes?
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Why is one arbitrary and the other not? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Because it relates to a labor dispute?
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Because it is based on pre-stated principles, which the other party is capable of fulfilling. This makes it non-arbitrary.
      - hiatus 3y ago
        I don't understand how my statement of firemen refusing to put out a fire because they didn't like the person is arbitrary. If they publicly stated they do not like the person because of their politics and will refuse to put out fires for anyone supporting that party does that make it okay to not put out a fire on their house?

VoxPelli 3y ago

Both, unlike in the US the Swedish post office is privatized and handled by multiple companies, eg Citymail also offers postal services. PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use. PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services. But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important

hiatus 3y ago
I am surprised that in this case Swedes value individual rights over their duty to the public.
- Novosell 3y ago
  Their "duty to the public" being to deliver license plates to Tesla? Really?
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Their duty is to deliver mail is it not? Should mail carriers refuse to deliver political flyers because they disagree with the message??
    - flusensieb 3y ago
      Political flyers seem like something very different to license plates. The court might decide differently under different circumstances.
    - Novosell 3y ago
      It's not just random postal workers doing it though, it's union members doing it as part of a sympathy strike. And surely every workers "duty" is their job, so then no striking should be allowed? Or should only complete strikes be allowed? Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.
    - 3y ago

fl7305 3y ago

Imagine a country where there is a law against private companies delivering mail to your mailbox? Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No? Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]