In EU, Teslas were cool toys at the beginning but now it got this image of "that stupid Musk's product" and people are slowly but surely drifting away from it, especially considering the competition catching up.
Surely, this other union thing is not going to improve the brand image.
Not only that. Tesla's are typical American products. If you look at the electrical use of cars Tesla's are the most power hungry electric cars there are. Up until the Tesla 3 all other electrical cars where more efficient. See: https://ev-database.org/compare/efficiency-electric-vehicle-...
Is there actually a meaningful difference between EV efficiency worth considering though? In contrast to ICEs, most electric motors are already very efficient and the difference comes down to design choices like power and weight (range), and air/rolling resistance, not wasteful inefficiency[1]. Most Teslas have very decent drag coefficients https://www.myevreview.com/comparison-chart/drag-coefficient.
[1] Of course there is a semantic issue at play here as well: efficiency referring to both range/energy as well as power out/power in, and whether anyone actually has the right to drive a 845 hp cybertruck around in the midst of a climate crisis and global mass extinction when ~100 bhp ought to be enough for almost all commuting/leisure use.
So unless you live in France or Sweden or some other country that had minimal fossil fuels in the energy mix for the grid, your EV is likely still essentially burning fossil fuels to get around (just burning it 10-20% more efficiently by way of a centralized plant).
It's not the efficiency of fossil fuel plants, it's this: What do you think is easier:
a) Regulate the half-dozen coal plants in the country to clean up their shit and install scrubbers
or
b) Somehow force 100k already sold ICE vehicles to install aftermarket pollution reduction doodads
_This_ is why EVs are better in the long run, as the grid moves to cleaner production, every single EV in use becomes more environmentally friendly at the same time.
I don’t disagree that it is better and easier to make cleaner coal plants en masse to reduce pollution. But you do get how that “clean coal” is mostly marketing and also has nothing to do with how much carbon is put into the air?
My point is not “we shouldn’t do evs” and more we are taking too long to electrify cars and this leaves out trucks, ships, and most trains (at least in the US). But that lack of electrification is outmatched by our inability to decarbonize the energy grid worldwide - with the decrease of % energy nuclear, it’s been met with increase in natural gas despite massive spikes in wind and solar. Additionally, since energy demands grow every year (eg electric cars now demand electricity from the grid) total energy is growing which means that despite increasing solar and wind, fossil fuel production has gained market share and total fossil fuel production has also grown. In no way is our grid energy production on a positive direction to becoming decarbonized.
Do you have a source for the 10-20%? ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and I wouldn't be surprised if the grid was twice as efficient, although I too have no source to back it up.
> The total WTW efficiency of gasoline ICEV ranges between 11-27 %,
> diesel ICEV ranges from 25 % to 37 %
> The EV fed by a natural gas power plant shows the highest WTW efficiency which ranges from 13 % to 31 %
> While the EV supplied by coal-fired and diesel power plants have approximately the same WTW efficiency ranging between 13 % to 27 % and 12 % to 25 %, respectively
Nuclear is the only energy source that has demonstrated that it can displace fossil fuels.
Look at what happens to the % of fossil fuels when nuclear energy mix shrinks over time even as solar and wind increase drastically: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
Looks like maybe solar/wind are able to take market share from coal (likely because regulations and popular opinions have made less profitable), a decrease in nuclear is directly correlated with an increase in natural gas usage. That’s pretty telling to me.
Also, nuclear is the only energy source that can generate enough energy to make carbon recapture possible and doesn’t come with unsolved energy storage requirements for the grid.
Efficiency is very important in electric cars, since it is directly related to the two main metrics that consumers appear to consider when buying an EV: cost and range. A more efficient car gets a higher range for the same battery cost or a cheaper battery with the same range. And it compounds: a smaller battery reduces weight, getting back some of the range lost by the smaller battery.
Objectively, I don't think the link you provided backs up your position. Filter by market segment, and...
Segment D (large), a class with 36 entries (albeit with some apparent duplications):
- Model 3 is the most efficient, and the Model 3 long range is the joint third-most efficient
- Model Y is the seventh-most efficient, and subjectively the most efficient 'SUV-shaped' (i.e. higher roof, less aero) in the class. The MY LR is ~13th most efficient.
Segment F (luxury), a class with 60 entries (albeit with some apparent duplications):
- Model S is 3rd (dual motor) and 6th (Plaid) most efficient
- Model X is mid-pack, but again subjectively the most efficient large 'SUV-shaped' car in the class.
I'd also add that while I don't follow the EV space closely, a good proportion of Tesla's frequent car updates are focussed on improving efficieny - aero, heat-pumps, etc.
When I last looked (over a year ago) when I was looking to buy/lease an electric car I was comparing cars and Tesla WAS the worst option at that moment and the Hyundai IONIC was the most efficient one; but I can not find the original source. BTW I had to settle on a gasoline power car as I do not have the money for an electric car.
There are a couple of other issues people don't want to talk about (or don't want to admit) as well. Sample size of four here but the problems are interesting.
Firstly it turns out charging your car is a pain in the ass in some places, particularly here in London. The chargers are regularly damaged and poorly maintained or completely rammed. There is also nowhere to park to charge at home. On top of that the electricity pricing options are so volatile that it is actually hard work to find a cost effective charging option on a regular basis which means you have to plan everything. Ad-hoc trips being a planning exercise really doesn't work well.
Secondarily, the cost savings didn't add up when you factor in depreciation and capital cost anyway. Especially when there is nothing competitive to petrol vehicles on the second hand market where the majority of sales volume is.
Add to that the toxic Musk association and the constant pushing and marketing and I think people are getting fatigued and unsympathetic at this point. The market is damaging itself with dishonesty, inflated claims and toxic association.
The four people sold their (3x Tesla, 1x BMW) and two went back to petrol cars and the other two said they'd never own another car again.
And if you live in the sticks you get EV range anxiety - my nearest town is an hour+ away so if I go shopping and can't find a charging point in town I'm risking stuck down a country lane in the dark. It's not very likely bar very bad luck, but why take the risk when I've got petrol stations everywhere?
I have a friend who semi solved that problem by building a DIY solar and storage farm on his property. His life however turned from various interesting hobbies into doing this to charge his car up which he rarely uses anyway. I don't get it. He had 0 problems, now has 2.
Your first point at least qualified itself with a “EVs aren’t all things to all people”, but beyond that, it sounds like you’ve got a very biased sample.
My EV will definitely be a net saving over a petrol car. 2.5 years in, and it’s basically a given at this point. And this is in a country without any government rebates.
It really depends how you choose to position yourself in the market and how you talk about it which is my point.
For example I drove a second hand vehicle for 8 years until the start of this year and the whole total cost of ownership over the entire time didn't even get to half the sticker price of the cheapest EV on the market.
It's not like companies are in any way shy about that. They love to associate themselves publicly with left wing causes, even going as far as to tell customers who don't like it to fuck off. See Disney, large parts of the news business, Budweiser and endless more. How often have moviegoers been told that they are obliged to like a movie because of the genders/races of the actors?
Musk isn't doing anything unusual in that regard. The only reason he attracts such opprobrium is the left feel they should have ideological control over every institution. Musk isn't on board with that and it infuriates them.
> How often have moviegoers been told that they are obliged to like a movie because of the genders/races of the actors?
I don't know, how often? I'm genuinely curious because as a movie-goer, I've never been told that I'm obliged to like a movie because of the genders/races of the actors.
It's so common it's practically a meme by now. Hollywood loves saying its customers are toxic sexists and racists. Sometimes they even explicitly say that people have a moral obligation to watch their movies. This article has a bunch of examples.
The 2016 dud “Ghostbusters” may have unofficially been the first time a Hollywood product singled out “toxic” fans. The franchise reboot, which reportedly lost Sony $70 million, included a scene where the budding Ghostbusters attack their online trolls.
The director, Paul Feig, added the sequence to directly attack the film’s critics.
I'm not really interested in the meme part, more just looking for the specific instances of this happening. It doesn't seem like anything in your quote is an example of movie-goers being told they are obliged to like a movie because of the genders/races of the actors.
Can we get a source that isn't obnoxiously ideologically biased? When I saw "WOKE" I immediately clicked away and now I'll doubtlessly have to spend weeks weeding that mind poison out of my YouTube algorithm
Just looking at the cockpit at almost all modern cars, the Tesla models especially, the are toys indeed. It's all buttons on a huge display, none of the comfort that a muscle memory offers when you want to adjust the AC a bit or flip the recycle air switch or use the built-in lighter.
How does moving some physical switches to a touchscreen (or a multi-switch) make a Tesla a toy?
I'm quite familiar the argument, but my personal experience in a Model 3 (and subsequently a Mercedes) suggests that an overabundance of geegaws is nothing so much as a crib mobile for upright adults.
I don't know much about cars, but I seem to see lots of non-Tesla electric vehicles around Stockholm and Gothenburg to the point where anecdotally Tesla seems just a drop in the bucket of extensive options. I see Polestar, Kia, Nio, and some logos I don't even recognize on the streets regularly.
So I just called to ask my partner who has experience in the automotive industry and knows way more about cars than me. Here's the general sentiment he expressed:
* There are lots of competitive options here that are growing in popularity, and more companies are producing solid electric options that are easily competitive with Tesla.
* One example was the Polestar 2, with which he said Polestar/Volvo can be said to have "caught up" almost 4 years ago. According to him Volvo's 100 years of experience with hardware helped make the Polestar a better vehicle hardware-wise, _but_ Tesla still has better software. He said it takes older manufacturers longer to catch up on that front. He said it depends on what the consumer values more: It would at this stage be reasonable to say the Polestar is better if your priority is the physical car itself. But if you value software, you might favor Tesla out of the two.
* Some companies are innovating in a way that Tesla has not, such as Nio's swappable batteries.
* There's lots of innovation and choice in the space, and where a few years ago Tesla seemed like the only option, there are other manufacturers who have "caught up" by now with their offerings by offering affordable, high-quality electric vehicles
Dominated by the Koreans and Germans. Car and Driver had similar conclusions for their 10 Best annual rankings for the EV category which didn't include a Tesla.
Tesla's charging network is king, but the actual automobiles themselves are no longer class leading.
AFAICT, the test was without preconditioning, which is silly because preconditioning is crucial for getting fast charging speeds. It's also unrealistic, because preconditioning is pretty much automatic so I've never supercharged without preconditioning.
Very true. General perception of Tesla seems to have gone down the drain in the past few years, as Elon Musk has become a more and more public and divisive figure. This stupid fight is not helping.
They are new Priuses. Sure they can accelerate in straight line much faster... and that's about it.
Colleague has model S, the most powerful plug he can have in his Swiss home can charge 9km of normal ride per hour (forget hills or generally cold weather like we have now till April). So overnight he is happy if he gets enough charge to go to work and back. I can't imagine living with constant range anxiety like that, since he has only this car.
Sure there is 150KWh charger somewhere out there, so now he needs to plan trips specifically to top up, with some waiting included.
The Tesla wall charger will charge at up to 22kW/h.[1] Assuming it’s the biggest Tesla Model S battery at 100kWh capacity (and a linear charge rate which obviously isn’t true) that’d mean that he’d be able to finish charging in ~4.5 hours, and then drive 40km given your 9km/h figure.
Even if it was a more normal 11 or 7kW/h charger it’d still have him driving 80km or 125km, neither of which is anywhere near what a Tesla should be capable of.
I don't know about Switzerland, but here in France, if you don't have electrical heating, it's quite uncommon to have more than a 6kW line to your home. And you can't easily get a fatter pipe. My parents' house has a 6kW line and could maybe get 9, but very likely not above.
I see it quite politicalized. Tesla was "cool" in Europe at a time when the center-left consumers were too naiv as to not realize that Musk is center-right. After the media helped to transport this, Teslas were suddenly less cool with center-leftish people. Its actually hilarious.
I don't think most Tesla owners really care or perhaps even know about Musk. The brand has fade quite a bit and while it's still viewed as affordable luxury brand for many, but is also devolved into "generic electric vehicle" in other circles. Basically: You wanted an EV but could be bothered to figure out which car to get so you got the Tesla.
They probably know who he is, but do they know about his crazy outbursts? The only reason I know that Musk is a lunatic is because HN wont shut up about his stunts in regards to Twitter. Otherwise I wouldn't have known either.
After Musk turned from center-right to extreme-right, you mean. Inviting nazis and white supremacists to Twitter, posting antisemitic tweets, and of course union busting. That's how he's squandering his once-positive reputation.
Europe has no problem with center-right politics; it is mostly center-right. It's the extreme right, racism, etc that people are very sensitive about. Also because of some unfortunate history about 80 years ago.
Godwin's Law was about heated Usenet discussions that have nothing to do with politics where people would eventually end up calling each other nazis. That's a totally different situation than Elon Musk inviting actual nazis and white supremacists to Twitter, paying them for their contributions, boosting and retweeting then, and kicking out critics.
Almost no-one I know cares about what Musk says on twitter, they just want an good electric car, and they buy them. The Model Y is the top selling car in europe.
Please - at least look up figures before posting stuff like this.
Edit: it’s amazing I’m getting downvoted on HN which is supposedly a scientific community. The person I was replying to made claims which were wrong which I point out with numbers. Yet people are so obsessed with hating musk they downvote me.
Fwiw in Sweden I get a company car and was considering Tesla but this Union issue has meant I no longer trust the level of service I will get long term & probably will get a Polestar instead. It is having some effect because, in my opinion, he is likely to decide to just up and leave one day and I’ll have a non-serviceable car. There’s not many automotive CEOs, if any, where that’s a consideration for me apart from Tesla and it does stem from his Twitter persona & rash decisions/going back on things a lot.
How does it stem from his persona, and not your countries unions? Unions can break whole industries if they're allowed to, and have done many times in the past. It's not a threat unique to Tesla.
Can you think of a single time this has happened though? Unions are great in Sweden, totally unlike those in the US. They're basically different organisations entirely.
You have three options: 1) government legislates everything tightly, 2) small government & pro-company, 3) small government & pro-employee. Simply put Sweden is 3, 1 is basically off the tables here, and 2 is against the Scandinavian culture.
Which is why I used terms like "in my opinion". Data is great but slow and I know my feelings are reciprocated by many others. Give it a year and see if current sentiment affects the stats as this is an ongoing issue while the data is over a year old.
Either Tesla folds OR sales drop because you can't service your car. This isn't rocket science, but unless you have sales data for the last month there's not much to really debate with beyond anecdotes.
Comparing model sales doesn’t make a lot sense. Tesla only offers 2 different models in the 40-60k range. Now look at VW and then add very similar cars from Skoda, Audi and Cupra.
Of course your’e still right Tesla’s market share in Europe has only been growing over the last couple of years.
Tesla model Y is selling like cakes here in Belgium.
Lots of electric cars have waiting lists that can easily be a few months.
Tesla has no problems here. Ordered mine, got it one week later. Tesla Model Y is also still the one of the best in terms of price vs value.
Imho the only real competitors are the Kia EV6 and Hyundai Ioniq 5 at the moment, but the model Y has them beaten in numbers on almost every front.
My main complain this season is that driver seat warming/steering wheel warming can not be controlled from a physical button or via API/app (today it was -15°C here). In cold weather, the rapid charging speed could be better, I heard that this has improved on newer models that also have larger battery. Real range is around 300km when it is below freezing and 480km during summer. https://www.ioniqforum.com/ Is good place to get feedback from other users.
As this is HN, then I also have to mention that Hyundai API (bluelink) has limits on how many queries you can do in a 24h rolling window. 20 or 50 queries, depending on the type…
As stated in the article: because they bought the vehicles, and Tesla had serious price reductions in the last years. That's net positive for almost all private persons, right? But not for companies that try to write off vehicles after 2 or 3 years (because of stupid tax incentives).
In Belgium the whole 'premium' market is tax incentivised. If you want to drive high-end fashionable cars, go ahead, but that cost should not go to the taxpayer, and those companies should not be profiting of it.
Probably because IRL, people have their own burdens to worry about like their families, careers and paying the bills. Going after a trillion dollar corporation slowly killing them with invisible particles is not first on their agenda but delegate it to the states to handle as that's their responsibility because that's why they pay taxes. The states which don't really do much against major corporations of that size but slap them of the wrist.
I do. I will be a lot more hesitant buying a 'green' vehicle from a company that 1) did not give a damn about switching to electric before Elon transformed the industry.
2) even lied about the pollution they created.
Consumers wanted electric cars a long time ago, those old-timers just denied us because it would've hurt their short-term profits.
... Eh? The first eGolf (ignoring weirdo historical electric Golf variants; VW has occasionally dabbled since the 70s) was delivered a year before the first Tesla S, though for a pilot scheme in California; they didn't hit normal retail til a year or so after. The eUp came out in the same timeframe. Commercial deliveries of Tesla Ses, eUps, and eGolfs all started within a couple of months of each other. By the time Tesla got around to launching an electric car that didn't cost like 100,000 EUR, VW had been making such cars for years.
I think VW maybe made a marketing mistake by making the eGolf and eUp so... non-obvious (there was really almost no way to tell they weren't a normal Golf/Up from the outside); it lead people to believe that the ID.3/4/5 were their first electric cars.
Predictable escalation to a stupid fight. The only solution, other than accepting unionisation (EDIT: collective bargaining, i.e. Swedish commercial culture), is franchising local operations.
A week ago that was Sweden. Now it's the Nordics. Let this marinate through Christmas, and it may find home in European legislatures.
Swedish labor laws are actually fairly lax (depends on what you compare with ofc), where the state has handed over essentially legislative power to the "parties", the large union organisations and organisations of employers / companies. A little corporatistic if you want.
These parties then negotiate and the resulting CBA's fills in blanks in the legislation (such as minimum salary levels etc) and other benefits. With a CBA in place, strikes are forbidden if the deal is kept. It's renegotiated every couple of years. Many companies / local unions also have local amendments (which are negotiated on a more local level).
This model is generally appreciated by both the unions and large enterprisey companies. It gives stability to the companies.
However... Tesla is of course not part of these employer organisations. A typical software startup or even fairly large (< ≈1000) white-collar employers are not part of these organisations either. About 10% of workers are outside of CBA (like me and probably the majority of developers in Stockholm). Those companies don't value having to commit to a CBA, might have different compensation schemes etc. The workers at these companies are typically happy and well compensated. It's not uncommon to see stuff like "Our pensions are according to the CBA" even if they don't sign the CBA.
Employees of these non-CBAcompanies can still be in the union though, as you get benefits even without CBA, and part of the unemployment insurance is typically through the union.
Further, according to both Swedish labour law and EU negative freedom of association principles, entering into a CBA is not required.
But, the whole Swedish model depends on most employers signing the CBA, especially those in blue collar industries where the risk of exploitation is higher. No union is going to strike about e.g McKinsey not having a CBA, but Tesla mechanics I think are too close to home of the blue collar unions.
I do wonder how this will end... Tesla signing an CBA seems out of the question, and I think the union might have overplayed their hand here. Many Tesla employees are not striking (nor want a CBA), many Tesla customers who might have had a good impression of the unions were pissed of when the union put a strike on e.g changing to winter tires of Tesla cars (even at non-tesla shops).
> Unions in the rest of the UE aren't as strong or influential as those in Sweden
No, but there's a unique alignment between labor (which is popular with voters) and industry (which fears Tesla) that could create real political momentum. This is a dumb alignment to force. Tesla is doing it.
I agree. In general, european companies accepts unions, but in return requires its competitors are also be unionized. Tesla not being unionized is a problem for european car manufactorers as Tesla will have lower costs/more flexible work force.
Anyone know if the german Tesla factory is unionized?
Not yet unionized, but IG Metall is making progress. They have representation in the factory and there recently was an action where thousands of workers wore union pins.
With Tesla having a blanket global ban on allowing unions coming straight from the top, I think IG Metall is just deluding themselves if they think they make progress.
Considering IF Metall started the current strike after trying to get deal signed for six years, I guess IG Metall will be still reporting "progress" out to 2030...
> might be worried that if they go down this route then they get set on a path to become their outdated competitors
They petrified when they became inflexible. Adaptability, not orthodoxy, is how challengers win.
To be clear, I don't think we'll see some pan-European labour movement against Tesla. But I do think it's becoming increasingly lucrative to take pot shots at the firm. If that starts happening in EU capitals, that's twenty-eight needless distractions to dispatch.
Tesla could always shift most of their production to the ex-“socialist” Eastern/Central European which don’t have strong labor movements and lower wages (of course lacking infrastructure would make it harder).
What infrastructure is lacking there? The region is already an automotive manufacturing powerhouse, only the recent energy supply problems hit it somewhat because of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions following it.
The countries without a sea connection, or energy pipelines to such a country are having harder time getting energy. Mostly German automotive firms and their supply chain have factories and those usually have some unionization, though truly not as strong as in the Nordics, and the workers can indeed be paid with lower wages without inducing discontent.
>Tesla could always shift most of their production to the ex-“socialist” Eastern/Central European which don’t have strong labor movements
But the striking Swedish Tesla workers aren't working in production, they're working in services. So even if Teslas would be made in Romania or Bulgaria, you still need to service them in Sweden, you won't send them to Bulgaria for service.
>of course lacking infrastructure would make it harder
What infrastructure is lacking? Poland, Czechia and especially Romania are already quite big auto manufacturing hubs.
Edit: That statistic only shows number of cars coming out the assembly lines but the automotive sector is way bigger than that. There's also OEM suppliers and parts manufacturing, including SW, that also contribute to the auto sector.
I think it is a safe bet to assume that those integrated industries have strong correlation with the manufacturing output. Especially in Czechia, which had the most advanced independent indigenous car R&D and manufacturing in the region before the fall of the iron curtain. I get that you are proud of the Romanian industry, which does have its merits, but in CEE it is not one of the biggest ones as you suggested in your GP comment. Czechia is the no.1 player in that field imo.
>There must be some reason Tesla decided to build their massive factory in Germany?
The same reason cheaper cars are made in lower-cost countries and premium cars in high cost countries, and Tesla is still a premium car.
Tesla went to Germany because it has the best infrastructure for automotive and they're making premium cars and can afford the higher costs of building in Germany as time to market was more important for them to gain market share than reducing costs. Cost reduction comes at a later stage.
But that doesn't mean Eastern EU countries have bad infrastructure, otherwise nobody would build cars there.
If we want EVs to get cheaper to rival those from China, then either those German workers will have to accept lower wages, or the EVs will have to be made in lower labor countries. There's no free lunch.
>But we still agree that they have worse infrastructure and that lower labor costs and no pesky unions didn’t seem to offset that in Tesla’s case.
Because, like I already said, Tesla had to enter the EU swinging to quickly maximize market share. And since its vehicles are all premium anyway, it could afford the higher cost of German manufacturing, but as the EV race heats up in the future moving into the lower cost segment, I'll bet you factories in the East will happen otherwise you can't have cheap EVs.
>Higher tariffs would also be a perfectly reasonable solution.
Do you want an EV future or not? Because as long as EVs stay more expensive in the EU, the average joe will keep buying ICEs, and EU EV industry will fall behind the Chinese one anyway making them uncompetitive exports. The EU car makers need to haul ass on the EV side kicking and screaming otherwise tariffs won't save them forever from going bust.
Sure, you can put tariffs on Chinese imports and tariffs already exist, but then the Chinese will do in the EU, what the Japanese did in the US: build local factories in low wage areas to build affordable cars, and still undercut the local competition.
> Because as long as EVs stay more expensive in the EU, the average joe will keep buying ICEs
Why would tariffs affect EV prices disproportionately more than that of ICE cars?
> US: build local factories in low wage areas to build affordable cars, and still undercut the local competition.
Which is IMHO probably thr best outcome. You’d have actual competition driving prices down but Chinese manufacturers wouldn’t have unfair advantages like when they are allowed to import cars from China.
Also US has much higher tariffs than thE EU. So I don’t think they are necessarily hurting electrification that much.
> Tesla could always shift most of their production to the ex-“socialist” Eastern/Central European which don’t have strong labor movements and lower wages
This might be the one move stupider than starting this fight, an innovator's dilemma [1] own goal.
The Nordics are a high-income EV beachhead. Tesla has best-selling cars. This entire fight is currently intrigue. The risk is it metastasising into a political crisis. What makes that crisis a crisis is it threatens those sales. Decamping--in effect, surrendering--positively nukes them.
It it were about manufacturing, then moving that to CEE would still make sense, as cars are high margin expensive items that some inland (train) freight in the continent is probably economical. Cars are even shipped over the ocean.
In Hungary when driving along the Budapest-Wien railway I can often see trains full of cars on some stations waiting for their timeslot (passenger trains have priority over freight in Europe).
I still don’t really understand. Are we still talking about Tesla building its factory in Germany instead of one of the CEE countries (with no/weak union and low labor costs)?
It is well known companies that guarantee paying the minimum salary and pension for staff members immediately lower innovation - it happens all the time in Sweden, a country with a higher innovation index per capita than the US (according to World Bank/UN annual studies).
This is a pretty meaningless cumulative metric which considers things like "Legal obstacles to foreign labour", "ICT priority for government", "Graduates in science", "Schools connected to the internet", "Telecom revenue", "Nature of competitive advantage" and many other, some of which are pretty hard to measure [1]. I wouldn't count such a metric as a measure of "volume of innovation".
Sure, but other stats are useful too like "Unicorns per capita" being higher than any region except SF. Stockholm is surprisingly innovative - even the day to day surprises me with technical integrations between services. I used to live in Palo Alto & the difference between Stockholm & even the Bay Area is huge, minus the self-driving cars.
My point is that having these Union collective bargaining agreements doesn't impact innovation in either # of successful startups or just general country innovation metrics.
This is only when you do an intellectually dishonest trick of comparing Stockholm the city to american states capita-wise. If you compare Stockholm (0.8 unicorns per capita) to other large cities, it will lag behind NY (1.48 UpC), Boston (3.5), Austin (1.0), Denver (1.4) etc.
edit: Okay Boston might have 31 [1], but while you're comparing leading cities to Stockholm you still have the remainder of the US which brings innovation rankings down. My overall point that Sweden has a decent level of innovation & startups (per capita) while maintaining a much better standard of living still stands IMO.
That doesn't mean Austrian Tesla workers are also unionized in a worker's council. Union busting is quite popular in Austria even by Austrian companies. Check out Anton Paar. You propose unionization there, you get fired on the spot since Austria is basically at-will employment for non-unionized workers. The Metal union is the only union with fangs in Austria, the rest are just paper tigers.
And a solidarity strike in Austria, like in Sweden, would be incredibly unlikely as I don't think there's the legal framework for that in Austria, and in general, striking is not really part Austrian labor culture but more like bending over to wealthy industrialists donors to the conservative OVP party, which is why I put my money on France.
The collective agreements in Sweden are pretty much a win-win between workers and employers. It is something that most of the industry and the unions care about. Basically, the government has left to the industry and unions to agree on a lot of stuff that is decided by law in other countries. E.g. Sweden does not have a minimum wage. This system has led to much fewer costly conflicts and strikes compared to many other countries for almost a century.
Well, it's also about power. But at the end of the day big companies refuse collective agreements because they want the options to make conditions worse than the proposed minimum, and frequently they also have many actual employees working at below the proposed minimum already.
This is the situation at Tesla Sweden, which pays wages below the market average and tries to cover the gap with stock options which Tesla is free to rescind at any time. There is also a points-system that in practice requires unpaid overtime in order to get a raise.
Some companies are bound to have wages below market average, that is unavoidable under all circumstances, collective agreement or not.
Specifics such as salary, overtime, vacation etc are more tangible and with more direct impact on working conditions. But striking for a specific type of agreement, which ties conditions in one workplace to a broader context are a different matter. That is a more strategic play which is about who sets the rules and who has the power.
In the Swedish business context, refraining from a collective agreement when you are the scale of Tesla is in no way a neutral choice: it is in fact an open attack on one of the central bargains of Swedish commercial society. Of course defending that bargain is unavoidably a strategic, if self evident, choice.
How so? It is pretty clear what the conflict is about, and it is not about anything of that. People may have their sentiment towards Tesla affected by Musk's antics, but it has nothing to do with the negotiation between the union and Tesla.
Except most American automakers besides Tesla seem to have very strong unions. Which are also possibly more effective at maximizing their members wages than the unions in Europe.
UAW is also focusing on all of those things (except maternity leave, US seems to be massively behind Europe in that area).
Of course they failed to force the 32 hour workweek during the negotiations over the last few months but UAW workers seem to get more vacation days than Volvo in addition to much higher wages (and profit sharing bonuses etc.)and pensions.
AFAICT the phrase was "overtime for work above 32 hours". So anybody working 32 hours would get 32/40th of a wage, and anybody working 40 would get 48/40th.
But in my opinion, the overtime demand was just a "duck"[1]. Something easily negotiated away so that the union and company could meet in the middle. It's standard procedure in negotiations to make ridiculous demands so that you don't have to negotiate away non-ridiculous demands.
Swedish unions are there to set minimum wages, benefits, pensions, etc… because we have an actual free market & the social cushion for the natural losers of a free market. Unions have to take the role of negotiating with companies because the government doesn’t.
> unions are there to set minimum wages, benefits, pensions,
I’m not sure how is that different from the UAW in the US? They do all of those things and seem to be as or even considerably more successful than European unions at achieving those things.
The fundamental difference is that in the US the Government dictates minimum wages and working conditions by law, in Sweden it's the unions that do it by agreement.
I’m not sure that’s relevant in this case? The minimum wage for UAW represented workers is over 300% higher than the one set by the federal government. Healthcare, retirement and vacation benefits are also massively better than those required by government.
This was all achieved through an agreement with the union.
Also it’s not like anyone working in non union factories owned by Japanese, European manufacturers or Tesla are earning anything close to the minimum wage anyway.
