The Swedish Model is, to my knowledge, unique in the world, and has been quite successful in both ensuring some minimum worker protections, and protecting companies from strikes. Swedish unions do not call for strikes lightly, and Tesla's actions jeopardize the entire system. If the unions do not fight back here, this system needs replacing and you do not do that overnight, maybe not ever in the current climate. This was fought hard for almost a century ago.
You cannot use US anti-union rhetoric to criticize this system because it is completely different from said US system. Or, well, I guess you can but sadly it just makes you look ignorant.
Have to blame the US somehow I guess for Swedish union issues. Tesla isn't a part of the US government and from a unit perspective is roundoff error compared to the US manufacturers Ford and GM.
It's very interesting. McDonald's tried this principled (anti-union) stance in Denmark. But now, they are still there, and the employees are very well compensated.
However, they were able to keep the unionization consolidated away from the home country. So don't worry too much.
> This is why McDonalds workers in Denmark are paid $22 per hour.
FWIW, I live in a low cost of living area of the US, and fast food restaurants advertise paying $20+/hr here these days post-COVID inflation. Have the European counterparts seen the same increase over the last few years?
I hear you, but... while I don't know the specifc details, I would imagine that the employer pays the government for at least part of these benefits:
> This compensation comes on top of the general slate of social benefits in Denmark, which includes child allowances, health care, child care, paid leave, retirement, and education through college, among other things.
> I live in a low cost of living area of the US, and fast food restaurants advertise paying $20+/hr here these days post-COVID inflation
Nobody actually gets an offer or employment for anything near that $20/hour - the fine print says "Up to $20/hour", and you have to be there for years to get close.
There's various expenses present in US budgets that are handled differently elsewhere. Insurance premiums have increased, dependence on cars means gas price increases hit harder in the US than the EU in general, etc. So a comparison of base wage doesn't really reflect reality.
Well, take up comparing base wage with the OP, whose post was intended to make that exact comparison just not with these results. That comparison was very common before wages rose so much over the past few years. I'm well aware of how hard comparison is even in the USA, but I am still curious about recent changes in the EU, given how the system is touted, even here. How is their system responding to similar challenges compared to the one I live in? But instead of responses, I get told I could not possibly compare due to all the complicating differences. Well what was the original point then? I'm likely inclined to agree with OP on policy, for whatever that is worth, but I am still curious and want to understand the details.
I'll note the jump to say "hey don't compare those" only came after I followed OP's implicit desire for me to compare. Unfortunately, that comparison didn't go the way it used to, so now we have a rush to say I shouldn't have done what the OP clearly wanted me to do.
The unions negotiate fair indutry-wide rates and conditions for the members, not taxes.
Think of it like people having talked about their salary in advance so when they walk into a negotiation and hear a number that's lower than their peers, they can call bullshit and make a take it or leave it counter.
Companies get upset about unions because they're not paying fair pay right now and know it, and if everyone in a trade demands the same minimum rate then they have to accept it.
It’s rare, which is why this audience likely doesn’t understand it vs “you’re not allowed to do that!” You absolutely can do whatever citizens collectively decide, including a general strike or blocking ports.
Not every country has elected to be a slave to rugged capitalism. A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
What would you expect the government to do here if the workers as a group decided not to unload these parts? Legitimately what would the appropriate response look like to you?
From his memoirs "The Singapore Story", Chapter 6, "Winning Over the Unions", on the ports:
> Recounting Britain's prodigal years of crippling dock strikes which led to the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967, I warned, "If that happens here at our harbour I will declare this high treason. I will move against the strike leaders. Charges will be brought in court later. I will get the port going straight away. The Singapore dollar will never be devalued and I think the people of Singapore expect this of their government." I spotlighted the "selfishness of established labour." Cargo handled by the Port of Singapore Authority in 1967 increased by winning over the unions over 10 percent, but the number of workers employed did not go up because the extra work was all taken up by overtime. This was immoral at a time of high unemployment. I told the union delegates that we must rid ourselves of pernicious British-style trade union practices.
A very interesting book; of course, it's his side of the story.
Singapore as an authoritarian city-state is not a model that scales to the entire world. It is an outlier among outliers and not every country has the blessing of being a parasitic entrepôt, even if other aspiring city-states such as Dubai are trying to copy it.
Singapore obviously had a lot of differences, particularly the PM's past close relationship with the unions, and the early stage of development making it more rational for workers to ride the common prosperity of high economic growth rates instead of squeezing more percentage points in negotiation.
But Sweden can still outlaw selective parts unloading by dockworkers, forcing an all-or-nothing strike, if it wanted to, and enforce such laws.
And I don't know why you'd call Singapore parasitic; they weren't leeching off anybody, other than the British early on.
They don't, and cars can still come in to Swedish ports... There's just not anyone there that's willing to unload those made by Tesla before the ship has to leave again.
The unions are allowed to strike because Tesla refuse to sign the collective agreement that regulates the use of strikes while the employees in return are guaranteed minimal wage, pensions and so on.
Tesla can sign this agreement any time they want to, but they're choosing this fight while the unions wants regulation. That's on them, not anyone else - and Musk is perfectly free to take his business elsewhere if he don't want to conform to Swedish customs.
Well, then there will probably be other steps. For example electricians unions blocking any work or maintenance on Tesla charging infrastructure.
The unions collective agreements in Sweden and pretty standardalized and include standard things like pension offsets etc. So not a big bruden for serious companies.
From a company/management point of view it is often something good in the end if in addition employees are union members (I’ve been in this situation myself as a manager in Swedish companies): Say you want to terminate someone, they will get union representation. There will be very little hassle and the process will go smoothly since everyone in the room knows the rules and when the employee gets upset their union representative can help them move forward without unnecessary hassel which would lead nowhere.
Longshoreman unions have an infamous history throughout the world. Even in the USA they have lots of leverage to dictate against things like too much automation.
the point I'm making is that the people on the ground making these places operate are the people that should have that power, and the idea that the government - supposedly the collective of all people in a country - would stand in the way of that for the sake of some capital holders is bizarre
People should have rights sure, but letting unions run ports to the contrary interests of everyone else is not that. I don’t want longshoremen unions telling me what I can buy and not buy.
You can buy whatever you want, nobody is stopping you. It would be you telling them what work they must and must not do.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is because those in the US are so accustomed to the power dynamic between employer and employee being one of controller and controlled, respectively. That's pretty much all employment in the US.
If you can for a moment question that base assumption, and imagine a power dynamic in which both negotiation and normal operations is one of equals, then you may see how that dynamic would lead to different systems.
No. I would force competition though. Longshore men don’t want to unload a ship? Fine, they don’t have to work that day. Just hire people from the hall that will? No one wants to unload the ship? Ok, just let the robots do it.
And when you get sympathy strikes? That's how it works in Sweden and what Tesla is facing. First the harbors, then electricians and it'll eventually be the entire country if the don't sign. That's how our system works: solidarity.
>The Swedish Transport Workers' union has also announced "sympathy measures" in support of IF Metall's strike, threatening to block the "loading and unloading of Tesla cars" at four Swedish ports, starting on November 7th unless an agreement is reached.
Their country their rules, but measures like this seem to go beyond negotiating and is just a hostage situation.
Would tesla be able to bring in their own employees to unload the cars, or would they be forced to build their own port where they're allowed to drive the cars off the ship themselves? I'm guessing it's the latter if it's possible at all.
There's a point where unions can come off as more of cartels than worker collectives, and getting involved in another unrelated unions negotiation seems to cross that line.
There's a large number of laws that exist to prevent monopolies from companies, but if one union is responsible for unloading at all ports in Sweden (idk if this is the case and it wasn't that easy to look up), then that feels very much like a monopoly.
Sweden has largely left it to employers and unions to regulate the job market with little interference from politics. For example, there is no minimum wage in Sweden, things like that are collectively bargained by the employers associations and the unions.
A company that comes here and wants nothing to do with unions can't fit into this system, because everything is built on the collective bargaining. Yes, the unions have an important position, you can call it a monopoly, what you miss here is that employers are also organized and have just as much leverage. The central bargaining means that there is literally no risk that a company gets singled out, the local union isn't going to demand a huge pay rise just for Tesla workers.
So there's little risk in signing an agreement with the union, nearly all the other sizable companies in Sweden have done so. On the other hand, no one is going to lift a finger to help Tesla if they continue to be stupid.
Man, I am glad someone is here to advocate for how fighting fire with fire is unacceptable. There is absolutely zero reasons for any union to flex their power against a company that refuses to negotiate with unions at all, just because they are in a related, but technically different part of industry.
We need to stop these filthy workers before they force company owners to lose a precious single digit percentage of yearly profit.
You just need to decide if you want to live in a society where corporations have disproportionate power over employees and reap the enormous profits, or one where employees hold more power over corporations and therefore get more of the profits.
You should check how that's working out for the citizens of the USA and Sweden, and ask the Swedish if they like getting more of the wealth they create or not. (hint: They love it)
I’m strongly anti-union. While they increase the average wage, they limit the top wages of those who are not average or below.
That said, Sweden is clearly pro-union. If Musk didn’t want to have to deal with pro-union tactics, like those being employed and considered here, he should have stayed out of Sweden and/or any other market where he may find himself in a similar situation.
But Elon thinks he can throw his money and muscle around and win whenever he wants. I hope he finds out he’s about to get more than he didn’t bargain for.
I am stronly pro unions as in Sweden, and they are not like the US unions. Around 70% of people in Sweden are members of unions for $15/month.
Sweden Tesla worker salary is 4k/month, with full health insurance, free kindergarten, free school, free college. In case they get ill, workers get 2 years of 80% salary, and rehabilitation.
While you have at will contrracts in the US, unions in Sweden have ensured 3 months notice. Unions also negotiate minumum annual raise and gives you annual raise at least equal to inflation.
Unemployment insurance is handled by unions, you must be a member - 1 year of 80% salary and additional year. If needed, new training is obtained for free.
Without a union agreement, Musk workers are slaves.
Lebron James would be an even larger billionaire. Also, he loves money so much he is afraid to speak out for the little guys being crushed in China lest he lose a few million.
Yes. The NBA collective bargaining agreement puts a max salary on players. In a free market LeBron would have made far more during his career, and the average player less.
This is exactly a case of increasing the median salary at the expense of top performers.
> The NBA collective bargaining agreement puts a max salary on players
If you check the recorded history you'll find that the NBA salary cap was there since the very first year of the league, and predates the union by several years: https://www.apbr.org/labor.html
The nba players union is definitely holding back the salary of Lebron. He'd be making 70%+ of the salary cap without max contracts that the union forced.
I’m not anti-union but I am warily of unions getting too powerful.
You cannot assume that unions will always do the “right thing”.
A lot of unions encompass the entire labor force of a sector effectively becoming monopolies on labor. Those aren’t healthy for the economy as there is nothing stopping them from abusing their monopoly position.
Frankly, corporations at least have antitrust laws to check them. Are there laws checking the power and abuse of power of unions?
In the US at least strategic industries are banned from striking. This happened to the railroad workers last year where the government passed a law that would take away their pensions if they striked. Reagan famously fired every ATC worker when they went on strike. There are many other laws too, in my state public unions can't strike over wages. Of course they just say they're striking about iother things and negotiate wages anyway but it does effect their messaging.
It may not have been obvious but I was being sarcastic. I thought the use of the word "filthy" when describing workers was bombastic enough to get my sarcasm across, but I do understand how this is a site filled with temporarily embarrassed billionaires and I could have hit Poe's law.
Good sarcasm mixes in seamlessly with legit, sincerely held beliefs, and Hacker News has built up a sizable subset audience of people sincerely simping and white-knighting for corporations.
I’ll be honest I thought you were serious too until I read this reply.
That being said, I know I’ve personally (as a US citizen) been conditioned from a young age to believe unions are a mixed-bag at best & outright criminal at worst. I also know as a matter of fact that this conditioning is incorrect, so there’s an odd feeling of momentary ambivalence whenever it pops back into my head.
I like how inflation has made having a million just ever so slightly realistic for enough people(heck you can get million dollar mortgages now) that Steinbeck's quote has been changed to "temporarily embarrassed billionaires"
McDonalds is its own special case though. In the US they own a lot of property. It should drive down prices and raise wages but they choose not to. It’s crooked af and is a part of a system that produces all sorts of hidden cost on tax payers.
> There's a large number of laws that exist to prevent monopolies from companies
From the accounting oligopolies, to the online ads oligopolies, to the b2b software oligopolies, to the publishing oligopolies, to the oil oligopolies, to the breakfast cereal oligopolies, to the music oligopolies, to the advertising oligopolies to...can you tell me what industry there are laws that prevent monopolies and oligopolies? Local restaurants and lawn care?
Bargaining always feels like an hostage situation from the side with less power. Lucky enough, workers united can tip the scales in their favor, while alone they are nothing.
Unions are political rather than economic entities. Descriptions such as cartels or monopolies do not really apply.
Supporting other unions' strikes has always been an integral part of the labor movement. Sometimes this is done with sympathy strikes. They are normal strikes, and all the usual rules regarding strikes apply. The people on strike lose money, which usually keeps excessive sympathy strikes in check.
The American way is having a union contract that states it explicitly that employees do not have to cross picket lines. When there is a strike somewhere, other companies may stop deliveries and other services to the affected company, because they don't have any employees who could provide the services. Those employees are still getting paid, because they are working normally and doing everything they were hired to do. Their employers just cannot provide the services expected from them.
Thats not a good take. a hostage that can freely leave the country is not a hostage. Tesla is a just a stranger in a different culture. If Elon shut down twitter in sweden in retaliation would he be holding sweden "hostage"?
In any case, analogies are not needed, this is typical union struggle, and it s how things work for a century. In the end there is compromise
> getting involved in another unrelated unions negotiation seems to cross that line.
Companies do favours for "unrelated" companies all the time - Tesla of all companies is in no place to complain about the same tactics being used on them. Outlawing this is what turned anglo countries into the capitalist hellscape they've become.
> if one union is responsible for unloading at all ports in Sweden (idk if this is the case and it wasn't that easy to look up), then that feels very much like a monopoly.
The union represents the workers. It's not a monopoly any more than a country having a single government is a monopoly.
Workers aren’t obligated to perform labor. They aren’t slaves.
Imagine another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers went on strike to stop it. This same dumb argument would apply.
If Tesla wants Swedish workers to work for them all they have to do is improve working conditions to the prevailing standard and hire a CEO who doesn’t spend most of his time being an asshole to other people on social media. Simple. Karma’s a bitch. Treat other people badly and expect people to return the favor.
Tesla’s profit per vehicle is well above industry standard, they can afford good wages.
Are you really adovacting that a foreign CEo should rule the local laws.
Their country, threir rules or he can leave.
I am stronly pro unions as in Sweden, beacuse I worked there, and have seen it. They are not like the US unions. Around 70% of people in Sweden are members of unions for $15/month.
Sweden Tesla worker salary is 4k/month, with full health insurance, free kindergarten, free school, free college. In case they get ill, workers get 2 years of 80% salary, and rehabilitation.
While you have at will contrracts in the US, unions in Sweden have ensured 3 months notice. Unions also negotiate minumum annual raise and gives you annual raise at least equal to inflation.
Unemployment insurance is handled by unions, you must be a member - 1 year of 80% salary and additional year. If needed, new training is obtained for free.
Without a union agreement, Musk workers are slaves.
If they're responsible for handling all of it, pretending that they're not already "in complete control" is disingenuous.
Also, business owners routinely pull the exact reverse, where they withhold or alter their services to extort other participants of the system to give them what they want. Why is it "good business" when the CEO does it but it's "crime" when the workers on the ground do it? Probably, cause it threatens many peoples fantasy that they can be powerful, rich, and in control of the labor one day if they play their cards right.
The workers of a country should definitely have complete control over all foreign trade. Solidarity strikes organised nationally across unions are just one of such mechanisms.
> Imagine another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers went on strike to stop it. This same dumb argument would apply.
Imagine if another country was delivering opium to your country and the dock workers get a cut so they have a financial interest in keeping the opium flowing. You outlaw opium and the dock workers strike grinding all commerce to a halt until you un-outlaw opium.
Monopolies are generally bad. It gives the monopolist nigh absolute power and absolute power will often be abused.
What are most labor unions but monopolies on labor? It would not be so bad if there are competing unions but often there is just one.
It really feels like you're being just as hypocritical as the people you're attempting to call out. Why are you anti monopoly when it comes to Google, Ticketmaster, and Amazon, but suddenly ok with monopolies when it comes to unions?
Why can't we just agree that monopolies are bad in both cases?
> or would they be forced to build their own port where they're allowed to drive the cars off the ship themselves? I'm guessing it's the latter if it's possible at all.
That would probably be difficult, as construction workers and related unions would presumably also join the sympathy strike. Electricians are already involved.
> more of cartels than worker collectives, and getting involved in another unrelated unions negotiation seems to cross that line.
It's in all the unions' interest to defend the current model. Sympathy strikes make sense.
That would be SEKO. I'm personally hoping for them and Finansförbundet (bank employees) to signal on Wednesday or Thursday that they'll be joining in, together with an expansion of Transport's involvement. They're all members of the umbrella organisation LO.
Finansförbundet will probably not signal until the strike has been going on for at least a few months, but I believe that a couple of other sectors will.
Tesla is like that guest who comes to your house only to refuse to follow the ways of those who actually live there. Tesla, Amazon and the rest of all these companies that are coming here is acting like it's America - it's not, and they will know this soon enough.
Collective agreements is how you do business in Sweden and their arrogance in thinking that they can come here and impose American business culture on our nation is so nonchalant that it probably have secured the support from the general public in favour of the unions.
> There's a point where unions can come off as more of cartels than worker collectives
Will nobody think of the poor multinational corporations and their billionaire owners?
Sarcasm aside, if Tesla has trouble dealing with labor in a certain country, they are always free to take their business of selling shitty cars out of there. There are other companies that will be glad to fill the gap.
>... but measures like this seem to go beyond negotiating and is just a hostage situation.
It's not like they didn't try other means first. Capitalists like Musk will happily break labor laws and endanger their employees just so they can make even more money. Asking nicely and being reasonable doesn't work with people like this. It's not the unions who choose to go this route, it's people being forced to play hardball with greedy billionaires.
I am not entirely sure why tesla chose sweden - it probably affects their quality as well, i mean volvo’s been pretty bad for a while. I do respect the idea of a union but it does sound like a monopoly. Guess socialism is like that.
As Tesla seems to be trying to circumvent the blockade by using other ports, the sympathy strikes is now going to be expanded further, putting all Swedish ports under blockade (against Tesla, specifically).
This second expansion goes into effect midday on the 17th of November.
According to an interview with a representative from IF Metall on Swedish Radio (public service) yesterday, other measures is to be announced in a few days as well, adding that they have the support of other unions here in Sweden.
These coming measures is due to Tesla still not being willing to negotiate, arguing that they will bring in strike breakers to be able to continue doing business here in Sweden.
Kind of shitty that when a big company wants something in US they just need to mobilize a few lobbyists and negotiate one-off payments to a few senators, but when workers in Sweden working for those same companies want something they need to strike by the thousands and endanger much needed income.
Tesla knows exactly how industry works, this is why their cars are good and everybody wants to buy them. If the workers doesn't like the reality, they could just change their job.
They're attacking the Swedish model, doing things that no one had done for a century. It's not illegal to bring in local strike breakers (aka scabs) because it's so extremely frowned upon that no one did it anyway. You made your argument the wrong way around - if Tesla don't like the Swedish culture and customs, they can move to a different country.
Americans would go crazy if some swedes swooped in and tried to change fundamental mechanics of the US culture and system from abroad.
An example needs to made here and that's why the other unions are joining in. Your beloved role model will end up with egg on his face.
Around 70% of people in Sweden are members of Unions for $15/month.
Sweden salary is 4k/month, with full health insurance, free school for the kids, free college. In case they get ill, workers get 2 years of 80% salary.
While you have at will contrracts in the US, unions in Sweden have ensured 3 months notice. Unions also negotiate minumum annual raise and gives you annual raise at least equal to inflation.
Unemployment insurance is handled by unions, you must be a member - 1 year of 80% salary and additional year. If needed, new training is obtained for free.
Without a union agreement, Musk workers are slaves.
Yep, all of this are how things are, assuming your workplace plays by the social contract and signs the collective agreement. You can sign up for the unemployment insurance without being a union member too.
I am under the impression that they did not strike due to fear of reprisals from Tesla. Therefore, an adjacent union striking against Tesla can be a substitute because Tesla doesn't have leverage to threaten them. It's worker solidarity.
So you think the workers who didn't join the walkout are lying when they say they fear the union and who they actually fear is Tesla? Do you have even a shred of evidence for this claim?
Is it laughable though? The union is blockading shipments to a company that chooses not to join. The next step, apparently, will be an embargo on the company's electrical repair work and trash service.
Seems like extortion to me, so I certainly wouldn't want to put my career or my family in the crosshairs of a group that's willing to sink to such lows.
When the mafia demands protection money, it's prudent to fly under the radar.
When a corporation arbitrary decides not to do business with an individual, it's just their legal right.
When individuals decide not to do business with a corporation, it's a mafia, huh?
Corporations have to be forced to submit to society or they'll run roughshod over everyone as soon as they are able. They might even play nice at first, offering good conditions and pay, but that would never last. Learn from history.
The whole point is that it's not considered a restraint on free trade if two businesses can't agree on a price and thus don't conduct business, but somehow becomes one when one side is the employee.
Indeed, they’ve guaranteed safety and prosperity for their members in Sweden for decades. Meanwhile in the US, Tesla workers have one of highest rates of injury among autoworker and the company is facing class action lawsuits and state investigations for alleged racist abuse of black workers.
Totally believable. They’re not at all underreporting workplace injuries. Oh wait, except they also got investigated by the state of California for that too:
Tesla's the biggest target for many journalists, the records are available via FOIA requests, and it's an obvious follow-up given the earlier stories. Tesla makes their workplace safety statements in annual reports, so proving a falsification of those reports is securities fraud and a big deal.
So if Tesla is lying, look it up via FOIA, file a whistleblower report with the SEC and cash in.
Two articles that are 3 and 5 years old about an investigation? That's your evidence? Sounds like it went nowhere because if it did you would have posted that.
Around 70% of people in Sweden are members of Unions for $15/month.
Sweden salary is 4k/month, with full health insurance, free school for the kids, free college. In case they get ill, workers get 2 years of 80% salary.
While you have at will contrracts in the US, unions in Sweden have ensured 3 months notice. Unions also negotiate minumum annual raise and gives you annual raise at least equal to inflation.
Unemployment insurance is handled by unions, you must be a member - 1 year of 80% salary and additional year. If needed, new training is obtained for free.
Without a union agreement, Musk workers are slaves.
yes, more or less slavery. modern slavery looks like that. underpaid. no rights. no pensions. no injury insurance. no right to. sounds like an average american factory worker. swedes don't want that.
educate yourself. there are 50 million people living in modern slavery today.
and yes they are white too. however, the largest slaveholder in the world in India.
So the source for your quote is
https://insideevs.com/news/693890/tesla-sweden-employees-ref...
Some kind of American EV trade magazine. I can tell you that the quote
is 100% bullshit and the only reason the employees wanted to "remain
anonymous" is because the writer made them up. Swedish unions have
exactly zero leverage on employees and the idea that someone would be
afraid of repercussions from a union is so preposterous that it is
laughable.
What the union is trying to do is to get Tesla to sign an agreement
not to pay auto workers less than what other car manufacturers pay. If
Tesla can't agree to that, when everyone else can, shame on them.
Worker solidarity doesn’t mean take another position from a shitty position, knowing someone more desperate than you might take the position you just left. It means making sure even the most desperate worker has a minimum level of dignity in their workplace. It means the worker is invested in improving the operations of the company in which they work.
This article talks about "at least 5" strike breakers that arrived in one single taxi. Sounds like that backs up, not contradicts, the above comment that most workers didn't strike.
I feel like the US mindset is heavily opposed to monopolization. We don't like monopolies in markets, governments, or working arrangements. That doesn't make worker's unions bad or good, it just makes them one more player in a larger dynamic.
There are lots of consequences to this. It also means that one can support unions while at the same time opposing a union.
You cannot use US anti-union rhetoric to criticize this system because it is completely different from said US system. Or, well, I guess you can but sadly it just makes you look ignorant.