It's a transparent BS argument. If Tesla provides better terms then what harm would come from signing an agreement to not provide worse terms than the industry baseline?
I don't know anything about this situation, but to play devils advocate here, if my goals were not in alignment with the union bosses or whatever group is trying to get me to sign. I would avoid even reading the terms if there wasn't real market pressure to do so. If a group exists explicitly trying to be an authority over how I behave but we have nonaligned goals, I'm never going to make it painless for them to have input on how I behave. I would want them to know I will operate as I deem correct until I have goals that can't be met without their approval.
They could be trying to force me to sign a contract that simply says I'll operate however I want to and if I believed they were an opposing force and not a partner I wouldn't sign it until I was force to sign it.
They might have to experience Scandinavian market pressure. One story about how McDonalds choose to experience it :
Once the sympathy strikes got going, McDonalds folded pretty quickly and decided to start following the hotel and restaurant agreement in 1989.
This is why McDonalds workers in Denmark are paid $22 per hour.
No idea how collective bargaining works in Sweden, im Germany so individual employers regularly enter into supplemental agreements with their respesctive employee councils. So I guess bothing prevents Tesla from doing the same with regards to their "better" conditions, employees and unions propably wont oppose that neither.
You can always give employees more pay, more vacation, better health care and so on. No union will prevent that. It just guarantees the absolute minimum levels.
Our collective agreement doesn't guarantee absolute minimums for all things. For example on on-call compensation: "Unless a local agreement has been made on standby compensation, the employee is paid 40% of the normal hourly salary."
In Germany it is quite common for individual agreements to e.g. increase working hours from 35 to 37.5, 38 or 40 hours without a pay adjustment. Those individual agreements are still negotiated, most of the time, between an employer and company/employee union reps.
What Tesla does is just plain stupid, only to make a point about opossing unions...
That’s usually comp for simply being on-call - all agreements I’ve ever had includes increased compensation for actual on-call work a.k.a overtime compensation.
3. Call-out
Call-out means work for which the employee is called back after regular working
hours and after having left the workplace.
3.1. At least one hour’s salary and a call-out pay shall be paid as follows:
a) If the employee was called after regular working hours or on the employ-
ee’s day off but before 9.00 pm, the call-out pay is equivalent to 2 hours’
salary.
b) If the employee was called between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am, the call-out
pay is equivalent to 3 hours’ salary.
3.2. If the work in case b) above represents daily overtime, the overtime com-
pensation for call-out work done as overtime work is immediately 100%.
Based on my personal experience with Scandinavian unions (I was an unorganized employee in a chain in which some stores had a push for unionization), these “fact checks” should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The math often aint mathin. More often than not they were comparing apples and lemons to come out “on top”. And the unions and their affiliates are just another breed of politicians – both in terms of trustworthiness and ambitions. Quite often they are also just literally politicians with another hat. The stores that got roped in (every store got to freely chose between the store- and the union-approved compensation models) made a huge fuzz when they lost out on variable compensation sometime later.
Now I didn’t work for Tesla, so the deals might work out differently here, but my point is that your comment is double hearsay, and that unions have every incentive to lie – at the very least by omission.
It's the same bullshit argument used by Spotify and Klarna. If the companies are already providing better terms then there's even less reason to not sign a collective bargaining agreement: the CBA only sets the lower bar, anything over that the companies are free to provide as they do right now. Nothing changes if that's the argument.
What they are trying to hide is the argument that a CBA will give power to employees during major reorgs with layoffs, a CBA doesn't set an upper bound to what employers can offer as benefits, just a lower one.
Scandinavian unions are incredibly naive financially speaking, and entirely lack a basic understanding of capital markets on an organizational level - including their relationship with the question of what constitutes fair compensation. They also completely neglect the stakeholder problem when considering compensation models - where arguments such as yours about raising the floor are completely removed from the context of financial realities.
As a person born in Sweden myself I have to say that the two times I have gone from a non-union contract to a union-contract the terms has been worse in a union.
Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats) and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
The workers don't want to strike obviously because they are satisfied with the contracts and have better terms and pay than in their previous jobs for the same age group according to themselves. It's illegal for employers to punish people for participating in unions in Sweden so anyone could go on strike without getting punished for it.
Unions have outplayed their role in society for the most part. The jobs in Sweden that really need unions rarely have them (service jobs).
> As a person born in Sweden myself I have to say that the two times I
> have gone from a non-union contract to a union-contract the terms
> has been worse in a union.
There is no such thing as a "union-contract". What you meant is that
there was a collective bargaining agreement in place at one employer
which prevented them from paying you less than some minimum. That you
then failed to negotiate a higher salary than the minimum is on you
and not the union.
> Pretty much all unions are left leaning politically, exclude members
> if you are connected to the wrong political party (Sweden Democrats)
> and don't offer many benefits for at least programmers.
Nope. Unions have barred active members of Sweden Democrats from becoming
functionaries, but have not terminated their memberships. For
developers, unions still offer insurances and have pretty good lawyers
which can negotiate agreements if there are disputes over, for
example, IP, patents, or severance packages.
> There is no such thing as a "union-contract". What you meant is that there was a collective bargaining agreement in place at one employer which prevented them from paying you less than some minimum. That you then failed to negotiate a higher salary than the minimum is on you and not the union.
Whatever dude, you know what I meant. I am not talking about salary really, the problem is that the unions and the employers tried to convince me and others to accept a shittier contract (which we didn't do) but ultimately we finally got the choice to accept or get fired. Although at one of these jobs we got them to improve the terms since no one wanted to sign it and they couldn't fire everybody.
The unions don't work for the employees, they work for themselves only. They don't care about the employees which was very obvious both of the times when the companies I worked in got unionized.
> Nope. Unions have barred active members of Sweden Democrats from becoming functionaries, but have not terminated their memberships. For developers, unions still offer insurances and have pretty good lawyers which can negotiate agreements if there are disputes over, for example, IP, patents, or severance packages.
Again nitpicking (and you're wrong [1]) also since still being allowed to pay for a membership where you don't get anything to say because of your political affiliations is disgusting and just adding insult to injury. I don't want to be a member of such a disgusting organisation. If I get badly treated on a job I'd never stay and try to fight, I just leave for another job since there is plenty of jobs as a developer with most companies being really nice and most companies will give you good terms. If I really wanted to fight (over an IP or similar) I would never trust a shitty union to take care of it, I would just use my saved money (instead of wasting hundreds of SEK on a worthless union every month) and employ my own lawyer that _actually_ works for me and my interests.
As a dev there is absolutely no need to be part of a union. I have never been part of one and never will unless they radically change a lot. The idea of unions is good but the practice is horrible, mostly because they themselves has gotten so big and greedy they have forgotten where they came from and what their purpose was.
No, I didn't knew what you meant. There is no such thing as a "union
contract" in Sweden. Your employment contract is between employee and
employer and is only indirectly affected by the collective bargaining
agreement between the union and the employer. That is, your employment
contract may not specify lower salary or worse benefits than what the
union and the employer agreed upon.
Due to inflation, collective bargaining rarely results in worse
agreements than previously negotiated. But it can happen if the
company faces bankruptcy and needs to urgently cut costs to
survive. Apparently, this has happened to you more than once since you
claim that "unions" and "employers" tried to convince you to accept a
"shittier contract". Tough luck, I guess.
> Again nitpicking (and you're wrong [1]) also since still being allowed to pay for a membership where you don't get anything to say because of your political affiliations is disgusting and just adding insult to injury.
Well, the excluded member was an elected official of the Sweden
Democrats. It wasn't solely due to his membership in that party that
the union excluded him.
Unions generally lean left politically for the same reason business organisations tend to lean right. It would be strange for them to advocate for worse policies for their members.
The unions and the employer organizations both ensure we have strong businesses in Sweden.
The unions doesn’t always try to get the most out of the companies in the short term but rather plays the long game and helps out in ensuring the company are healthy as well.
In times of economic trouble they can eg collectively negotiate solutions that minimize the amount of job cuts by temporarily worsen the policies for the employees.
The collective bargains applies to both members and non-members at the work place though.
How can the unions exclude members, let alone based what political party they are connected to? At least here in Finland my union has no idea about my politics.
The Sweden Democrats counterpart Finns party can and do enlist in union elections just like anybody. Their success isn't great, but that may be explained e.g. by the party being quite anti-union? For example as we speak they are trying to push laws to restrict strikes and union representation.
The overlap between working politicaly and working in unions is pretty big, the unions in Sweden have to a large extent socialized with the center-left parties. The concrete issue was with a local union chairman, who was a front figure for the far right wing SD. He had to choose, and choose the party above the union.
That unions and political parties founded by Nazis might have issues with each other have historical reasons.
In Finland the white collar unions are more slanted to center-right. The previous white collar "union boss" was a card carrying Coalition party (economically rightmost party) member, and in right wing of that. (And that party was quite cozy with the original Nazis and formed for the purpose to put Finland under rule of a German king.)
If the local union chairman was thrown out just for being SD, that's fucked up.
I may not support that party but it is huge; it’s not a fringe party. I’m surprised unions don’t allow them, it’s the second largest party and 90% of workers are in unions. I’m skeptical of the original point
Well you may be as skeptical as you want, you can still be a member of an union if you vote SD but why would you when they will actively work against your interests and may exclude you at any time?
We have voter secrecy in Sweden there is no way to ban members who vote for parties that actively works against unions. This is a good thing, unions should not know what I vote for.
But if they do know, like if you do work for a political party or are open with where your sympathies lies, they can easily exclude you and prevent you from working within the union.
Besides if you do vote for SD and don't tell anyone why would you want to pay someone that is actively work against your interests?
You also have minimum wages regulated by law. In Sweden, both strikes and minimum wages are regulated by the agreement Tesla is refusing to sign.
The union wants regulation, that's the whole point. Tesla only have themselves to blame for any action that stems from the decision to not sign a collective agreement.
PS. 90% of Swedish labor is covered by collective agreements that has been hammered out over the last century - it is custom to sign it and no one has brought in scabs for almost a century during a strike, forcing unions to step up their game. As Tesla threatens the Swedish model, it is a concern for all labor.
Can you provide a citation demonstrating evidence of this assertion (it is a very general statement)? You might be referring to the Taft-Hartley act [1], which there are ways around. The NLRB also has a great resource on the topic [2]. It is true there are situations where you cannot strike, which labor organization needs to be mindful of.
Ye I thought sympathy strikes are a general strike somewhere else unrelated, to put social peer pressure on the leaders of company target of the actual strikes.
To pick one of the examples above, could the USPS legally help out the strike by selectively rejecting packages going to/from Tesla addresses? My guess would be it would need to be a bottom up organization breaking company rules, probably isolated to some regions. Then again unions and striking was illegal during robber baron times too, but not necessarily immoral.
Indeed, there is nuance between outright illegal and bending the rules or taking actions that are effectively a strike without outright striking. Determine the desired outcome, seek a legal opinion from counsel, and build your strategy backwards from that. Perhaps you don't strike, but slow down, call out, whatever. "Are we on strike or we just collectively having an off day?"
In this specific example, if people like Elon can break the law without repercussions, it seems disingenuous to fault workers attempting to do the same (depending on where the actions fall between bending and breaking any specific law) to protect their rights, compensation, and working arrangements considering they're where they actual value comes from. Tesla is afraid of the precedent of labor having a role in their management and operations decisions (because Elon demands operating from a position of power against all), but they are fighting a losing battle (Sean Fein and the UAW in the US [1], incredibly high support of unions in the under 30 cohort in the US [2] [3] [4], etc).
> And among those on the frontlines are the nation's youngest workers leading the renewed push for labour unions. Gen Z is, according to the Center for American Progress, "the most pro-union generation alive today".
> "I think there's a growing understanding that if you have a job, you need a union," says Jaz Brisack. The now-26-year-old was one of the earliest leaders of union efforts at Starbucks in Buffalo, New York, in 2021.
Actually, this would be considered a “secondary boycott” which is illegal in the US: “Secondary boycotts: These are strikes that are directed at someone other than the strikers’ employer.”
So the benefit of a union is it that it encourages people to address conflicts in a childish and passive aggressive way that also causes collateral damage to uninvolved 3rd parties?
I'm not running a business or anything, but if someone uses shady tactics like that against me, any negotiation is over on principle, regardless of the costs to both of us.
And it's sad that sympathy strike is illegal in some countries. It's like being able to defend your own family, but being denied to help any other not directly related person.
Like i see a women is being robed, but since she is not my wife i can't intervene and only can observe.
It’s to force Tesla to respect the agreed upon model of the Swedish labor market.
Instead of having the government decide everything we let the employer organizations and the unions negotiate deals that are adapted to the needs of the sector they are in.
The employers and workers knows much better what is needed to make companies and workers flourish and giving them the freedom to negotiate without having the government meddling with it – that has been very beneficial to Sweden.
In this agreement it has been understood that employers respect the strikes of workers and doesn’t replace striking workers with other workers.
Now Tesla is actively trying to circumvent the strikes and that is pretty much unheard of here and threatens to set a precedent that threatens the entire model of the Swedish labor market.
That’s why there are these strong sympathy strikes now – as Tesla responded to the first strike by attacking the very foundation of our employer-worker relation here in Sweden.
So it’s more than just forcing unionization, it’s about forcing Tesla to respect the Swedish labor market and how we collectively bargain here.
They also have superchargers here – and the sympathy strikes from electricians will include them as well.
And third party service workshops have also been included, so one of the best selling cars in Sweden right now will not be possible to service and neither possible to actually get shipped to Sweden.
This is false, both in the sense that employees that would like to be scabs are not being prevented from crossing the picket line and that there are no Tesla workers taking part in the strike.
However, because Tesla Sweden has repeatedly threatened repercussions (loss of company stock which is the main way Tesla Sweden matches market wages, loss of employment) if you strike, the picket lines are manned by other union members.
Please provide a reputable source of Tesla workers not striking and a theory of who it is that is standing by the so called picket fence.
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 a minimum wage, pensions and so on - as have been custom in Sweden over the last century.
Tesla could 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.
More than 90% of labor is covered by collective agreements in Sweden, and while the number of members has dropped over the last few decades, about 70% of the population is still members of a union. When Tesla comes in, breaking all unwritten rules and customs and consequently attacking the Swedish model - this is bound to meet heavy resistance from the Swedish workforce.
Can you imagine the outrage that would come from a Swedish company coming to the US, trying to change fundamental mechanics of the system there without the support of its citizens? Why shouldn't this scenario result in the same outrage and resistance here in Sweden?
The solution is simple, sign the agreement - as is custom here in Sweden. If they can't conform to Swedish customs then they are perfectly free to leave.
To be fair, I've made the same (not identical) arguments over three different threads on the same subject. However, I'm still waiting for the first serious reply with an actual argument.
You’ll never win an argument that has such different cultures in the comment section, sadly. Not only are there the US ideas of unions here, but also Musk fanboyism. It’s a lost cause!
I'm not really expecting to turn any Musk-fanatics around if I'm being honest, even though a serious argument or two from a couple of them could be fun. I'm more interested in providing context to those who read the comments and haven't thought about this matter in a context other than that of the US.
Sorry, please provide more context for me to able to answer your question. /s
PS. I explained why it's legal and why other unions feel obligated to join in, but you have not provided any arguments to why it should be illegal. Please explain Russell's teapot in this context.
Why? Those workers are allowed to strike to better industry conditions. Alsobthe workers 'not wanting to strike' is very likely for fear of retaliation.
No, they are port workers doing a sympathy strike with IF Metall, they are workers that see collective action taken against Tesla and decided to join in on their field.
Tesla workers under IF Metall are under strike, there are scabs in any strike, Tesla was ferrying workers from other places to cross picket lines and do the work, that doesn't fly here in Sweden, hence the sympathy strikes by other unions to show Tesla that this attitude is despicable in this society.
They’re not being blocked from work - the article clearly states that work is conducted in Tesla workshops. Other workers refuse to work on Tesla-related assignments,
that’s freedom in action.
At all points they are updating the spreadsheet entitled "cost/benefits of leaving Sweden." I suppose the labor cartel is trying for the razor's edge on that.
I do like people arguing that other companies are better for workers. Perfect! Work there instead. No joke--I've done that.
In Sweden there’s not many laws in place for employees, there’s collective bargaining agreements that unions ask for instead. For example there’s no minimum wage, but the unions get a fair living wage for employees. Union / Employer relationships are totally different here than the US. Companies have to agree to the agreement or they’ll struggle, and if Tesla want to leave they can. But employees rights for a good pension, salary, holiday (such as one month off over summer), paternity leave (such as a years leave), etc… are more important. Klarna tried this recently and just folded.
Edit: I do want a Tesla, my workplace will buy me a car (as a perk) at a hefty discount, but if they leave I’ll get a Ford Mustang Mach-E :) no loss for us if Elon throws toys out the pram for ~130 employees
