131–140 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is still an idiot - he did not start Tesla btw :).
> he did not start Tesla While true, this meme feels almost as petty as Musk himself: Tesla had barely shipped its first car when Musk took over. Founded July 1, 2003, the Roadster was officially revealed to the public on July 19, 2006; Eberhard was asked to step down as CEO in August 2007; Tesla had still only delivered 147 cars by January 2009.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law is relevant. In the US, because of the NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. ruling, companies may use strikebreakers as a permanently replacement for striking workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg... . The US is one of the few places which allows this. (That is a "Today I Learned".) If I read https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpsla... right, Sweden got rid…
That contradicts the parent's point that "Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU.". Since Sweden is part of the EU.
While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's one mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 , are illegal in the US due to the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act.)
The US court interpretation encourages strike breaking. For example, when combined with the decertification provision of Taft-Hartley Act, you can hire strikebreakers then have the new population of workers decertify the union. (This is one of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... .)
So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker.
These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
To give what I think is a reasonable analogy, Sweden does not have a minimum wage law while the US does. Instead, minimum wages are determined by union agreements on an industry sector basis.
A US employer who enters Sweden and offers a position for only $5/hour might consider that reasonable, as there is no law against it. However, they would (as the Denmark/McDonald's case shows) be subject to industry action that is prohibited in the US.
From a previous discussion: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/09/21/when-mcdonal...
Once the sympathy strikes got going, McDonalds folded pretty quickly and decided to start following the hotel and restaurant agreement in 1989. Thank you for posting this.
elon is furious that european workers demand to work in a safe environment because this is not how fortunes are built (they're built the old fashion way, with broken limbs and lead poisoning)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That contradicts the parent's point that "Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU.". Since Sweden is part of the EU.
From what I understand, there's no law because there's no need for a law as strikebreaking isn't common, and these sorts of issues are covered by industry-wide trade union agreements and protected by the broad right to strike. While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's o…
Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
>So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once the sympathy strikes got going, McDonalds folded pretty quickly and decided to start following the hotel and restaurant agreement in 1989. Thank you for posting this.
I think this case could be a bit different. You can easily go to another restaurant if you have a grudge against McDonald's. It's not so simple if you already own an expensive Tesla that you need serviced and repaired.
Europe has better public transportation than the US.
I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, there's no law because there's no need for a law as strikebreaking isn't common, and these sorts of issues are covered by industry-wide trade union agreements and protected by the broad right to strike. While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's o…
Maybe Im dense, but I miss the point of what you trying to say. Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden. >So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand w…
I think sympathy strikes are legal in Sweden. That makes them a legally allowed consequence. If I understand the Denmark McDonald's case correctly, then the Swedish equivalent of the Teamsters could decide to not deliver parts to a Tesla repair shop.
> Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
Yes. Why is it so important to only look at what the law says about strikebreakers? There's also the overall economics.
As I understand it, in the US you can fire someone on strike and replace them with a permanent worker, so long as it is justified economically and not due "anti-union animus" - and the latter is hard to prove.
As I understand it, going on strike in Sweden not considered grounds for terminating the employment.
So if the employer hires a strike breaker - which is legal! - then once the worker ends the strike, the Swedish employer must continue to employ the worker and the strike breaker, under much stronger employee protections than in the US. That makes it expensive to hire strike breakers.
This makes the US a much easier place to use strikebreakers, even before considering its combination with anti-worker laws like Taft-Hartley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany we're allowed to drink beer at 16 (everything at 18) and afaik if you, aged 15 to 17, are working somewhere that sells alcohol there isn't a law that's forbidding you to handle it.
>In Germany we're allowed to drink beer at 16 We all know nobody cares about that there. Teens get wasted as early as 13 and by 18 they already give up on drinking.
Also 16 is to buy or drink unaccompanied, if accompanied by a legal guardian it's 14 (again excepting spirits).
> company claims that it doesn't sign collective bargaining agreements anywhere in the world LoL, yeah good luck with that. From my experiences working for American companies, this is typical behaviour where an American company doesn't (yet) realise the things that got them ahead in the U.S.A. won't necessarily work — or even be legal or accepted — in Europe. They'll learn ;)
Elon Musk famous for sacking entire department or even close down factory PERMANENTLY. Europeans will find out their current unemployment will be doubling in coming months with no money to pay for American expensive oil and gas replacement to Russian. Swede will learn they arent that special and even influential. Their train schedules really under perform if you ever experienced the Japanese one.
How's that work?