4 ms·

So a shipping company is refusing to deliver packages to a specific company? This sounds like a shakedown.

by pard68 3y ago

cornholio 3y ago
What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord. So Tesla has no choice over using PostNord, they are mandated by law to do so to receive their plates, yet a private interest group can arbitrarily deny them access to public services. There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold. The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord. Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation. The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.
  - cornholio 3y ago
    Unlike the USPS, which is a a government branch with an universal service obligation, Sweeden has a liberalized postal market. This means PostNord won a public tender and has a contract to deliver services to the Swedish government, regardless of the ownership structure. So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The "rule of law" in Sweden explicitly permits collective action of this nature, doesn't it? Hence the court ruling?
      - cornholio 3y ago
        "The rule of law" is a general philosophical and legal doctrine, not the laws that happen to operate in a certain country at a certain moment. If, for example, the constitution places all decision power in the hands of a dictator, that would not be a rule-of-law regime, even if the decrees issued by said dictator are, technically speaking, legal. Historical examples of "legal" atrocities abound. What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.
- VoxPelli 3y ago
  It’s easy to avoid actions like this: Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration. So far two international companies have refused this: Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in. Tesla now.
  - pard68 3y ago
    Why? They pay taxes. They pay shipping. Why do you also have to pay extortion fees?
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      > extortion fees They have options of course: 1) Stop doing business in Sweden. 2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.
      - pard68 3y ago
        Just because every other company in Sweden accepts extortion as part and parcel of doing business does not make extortion okay.
        surgical_fire 3y ago
        > extortion Complying with labor protections is not extortion. And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.
    - aforwardslash 3y ago
      Just because you pay something, it does not give you free reign to go against the local customs and traditions. Go to a cinema, buy a ticket and be loud and obnoxious; see how fast they throw you out, regardless of having paid. Its not illegal to be obnoxious, but it is frowned upon.
- pard68 3y ago
  Especially for US investors I suspect. That this is legal and seems to be at least partially government led, is absolutely mind boggling to me.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    It isn't quite legal -- it's just customary to pretend it is. The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary. That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;) Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions. I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...
    - xorcist 3y ago
      > I think Tesla has a good case here You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them. They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market. > and are therefore risky places to invest It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.
peterfirefly 3y ago
That is of course exactly what it is.

So a shipping company is refusing to deliver packages to a specific company? This sounds like a shakedown.

by pard68 3y ago

So a shipping company is refusing to deliver packages to a specific company? This sounds like a shakedown.

What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord. So Tesla has no choice over using PostNord, they are mandated by law to do so to receive their plates, yet a private interest group can arbitrarily deny them access to public services. There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold. The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> What is striking here is that the Government offices all use the services of PostNord. Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation. The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.
- cornholio 3y ago
  Unlike the USPS, which is a a government branch with an universal service obligation, Sweeden has a liberalized postal market. This means PostNord won a public tender and has a contract to deliver services to the Swedish government, regardless of the ownership structure. So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    The "rule of law" in Sweden explicitly permits collective action of this nature, doesn't it? Hence the court ruling?
    - cornholio 3y ago
      "The rule of law" is a general philosophical and legal doctrine, not the laws that happen to operate in a certain country at a certain moment. If, for example, the constitution places all decision power in the hands of a dictator, that would not be a rule-of-law regime, even if the decrees issued by said dictator are, technically speaking, legal. Historical examples of "legal" atrocities abound. What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.
VoxPelli 3y ago
It’s easy to avoid actions like this: Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration. So far two international companies have refused this: Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in. Tesla now.
- pard68 3y ago
  Why? They pay taxes. They pay shipping. Why do you also have to pay extortion fees?
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    > extortion fees They have options of course: 1) Stop doing business in Sweden. 2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.
    - pard68 3y ago
      Just because every other company in Sweden accepts extortion as part and parcel of doing business does not make extortion okay.
      - surgical_fire 3y ago
        > extortion Complying with labor protections is not extortion. And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.
  - aforwardslash 3y ago
    Just because you pay something, it does not give you free reign to go against the local customs and traditions. Go to a cinema, buy a ticket and be loud and obnoxious; see how fast they throw you out, regardless of having paid. Its not illegal to be obnoxious, but it is frowned upon.
pard68 3y ago
Especially for US investors I suspect. That this is legal and seems to be at least partially government led, is absolutely mind boggling to me.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  It isn't quite legal -- it's just customary to pretend it is. The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary. That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;) Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions. I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...
  - xorcist 3y ago
    > I think Tesla has a good case here You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them. They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market. > and are therefore risky places to invest It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.

peterfirefly 3y ago

That is of course exactly what it is.