5 ms·

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

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...

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...