More than 90% of the labor in Sweden is covered by collective agreements. Tesla is breaking unwritten rules and is threatening the Swedish model, this is bound to meet heavy resistance from the Swedish labor in full force. While the US regulates strikes and minimum wages by law, it is in Sweden regulated by collective agreements. As Tesla is refusing to sign such an agreement in negotiations, they themselves made the…
I hope they do leave and take their oh so horrible jobs with them. Never bow down to intimidation from crooks.
Which is why solidarity strikes have been illegal in the US since 1947's Taft-Hartley Act.
Precisely this. This is a perfect example of how corporate ownership of the political process has usurped the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people, in favor of taking care of corporate interests A great example of how oligarchical power is literally built into our legal infrastructure
> corporate ownership of the political process has usurped the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people
This is a curious diagnosis of a late 40s law. Consider why average Americans, including those in the lowest rung, vote against pro-union legislation (or don’t turn out for it), as well as the difference between Swedish and American unions.
Want to share my reply to a comment reply here that was deleted, which called this “crazy”: It’s not crazy. It’s a very effective way of balancing the power dynamics between corporations and workers. What’s crazy is not having these rights enshrined in law. Why should the government tell workers how they can or cannot strike? This way of doing it gets you one thing that some Americans dream of: no federal mandated un…
Except immigrants will come to the country and be willing to work for lower wages, they will be OK without taking the union benefits. Unions are a way to enrich current members by creating an exclusive cartel. How do you deal with the fact that there are people willing to work for less?
Icelander here. We have 90+% union participation in the country. A large portion of certain unions are immigrant workers. They have at numerous times gone on strike for better pay.
So, at least here, your hypothesis does not seem to hold.
This is probably due to the unions educating those immigrant workers on what their rights are.
Good point. Sweden has better institutions and labor laws to reduce friction and enable cooperation. Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. In sectoral bargaining , unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts represen…
> Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true. Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield th…
I think that reality is always more nuanced than partisan talking points. Both unions and corps make good points about certain things and exaggerate others for their own benefit.
Want to share my reply to a comment reply here that was deleted, which called this “crazy”: It’s not crazy. It’s a very effective way of balancing the power dynamics between corporations and workers. What’s crazy is not having these rights enshrined in law. Why should the government tell workers how they can or cannot strike? This way of doing it gets you one thing that some Americans dream of: no federal mandated un…
Except immigrants will come to the country and be willing to work for lower wages, they will be OK without taking the union benefits. Unions are a way to enrich current members by creating an exclusive cartel. How do you deal with the fact that there are people willing to work for less?
> How do you deal with the fact that there are people willing to work for less?
By having a collective bargaining agreement setting the minimum pay the company is allowed, leveling the playing field to remove exploitative measures like that.
Which is why solidarity strikes have been illegal in the US since 1947's Taft-Hartley Act.
Precisely this. This is a perfect example of how corporate ownership of the political process has usurped the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people, in favor of taking care of corporate interests A great example of how oligarchical power is literally built into our legal infrastructure
It's not a given that "the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people" should be the true purpose and focus of government.
I would assume that your discontentment is a result of misalignment between what you think is the government's role and what those who make government, think the government's role should be. Which one of you has a more legitimate claim to the truth?
America pays more but has less of a safety net. I moved from Palo Alto to Stockholm and while I’m paid far less, everything else is cheaper or free. And I get twice the holiday. And I get a years paternity leave. And I don’t have to live in the Bay Area. So many perks, I’m happy to pay ~$80k for them!
How much do you make in Stockholm that you pay $80k in taxes though? I've paid that much in the bay area!
Want to share my reply to a comment reply here that was deleted, which called this “crazy”: It’s not crazy. It’s a very effective way of balancing the power dynamics between corporations and workers. What’s crazy is not having these rights enshrined in law. Why should the government tell workers how they can or cannot strike? This way of doing it gets you one thing that some Americans dream of: no federal mandated un…
Except immigrants will come to the country and be willing to work for lower wages, they will be OK without taking the union benefits. Unions are a way to enrich current members by creating an exclusive cartel. How do you deal with the fact that there are people willing to work for less?
Norway will not issue a work permit for immigrants, if their work contract pays less than is typical in the industry. So this loophole is accounted for. Once an immigrant has permanent residency (or arrives due to marrying a Norwegian) then this could become a problem, but by then they have hopefully integrated enough, and will no longer work for peanuts. The cost of living being so high here probably discourages that anyways, and the things the sibling commenters stated also apply.