Good question Margate, and thanks for your equally courteous response. I'll try to answer your points with the best of my knowledge.

The way I see it is that this specific issue has created a perfect storm, where the aspirations of one party, which may seem reasonable, are clashing with a broader accepted principle. It's that broader principle of sector by sector collective bargaining, rather than company by company, that allows other unions and workers to take part in the dispute.

For better or worse, both employers and employees have for a long time been in agreement that this principle provides the best outcomes for both. I don't really think that the employers are under pressure from financial institutions, who often tend to be more capitalist in nature, and instead are motivated by the benefits. Those being, as I previously mentioned, one of the most entrepreneurial environments in the world, one of the lowest man hours lost to strikes in the world, and a relatively low rate of corporation tax (20%). For workers, it also organically achieves a higher average minimum wage than many countries ($14 per hour), with little to no interference from government. It seems therefore that it's a mutually successful dynamic, that's largely been agreed by consensus.

That said, there's no system that will ever provide the best answer in every case. That's the nature of systems though, they're built to try and deliver what works best in most cases, and for Sweden this system appears to deliver that. However, you will always be able to isolate a specific example and say it might work better out of that system, and that's the argument being put forth here.

So yes, I agree with you. In isolation it looks like unfair tactics but, in the context of a system, where both sides have mutually agreed the rules, then it's fair game. It's therefore less about fighting Tesla, and more about fighting to uphold that mutually agreed principle, on the basis that it provides maximum overall benefit.

I will also add that, to some extent the game allows for that, in that there will always be a point at which either party may exceed accepted boundaries, and the unions may well reach that point. In my view of a free market, the market would react and correct that. The alternative would be for government to intervene, which is less free, in my opinion.

I suppose the best way to compare it, in a way that relates more closely to other countries, might be this. Imagine a corporation wanted to set up in the US, but forgo any rules regarding healthcare, minimum wage, or even sex discrimination. One could argue that it was only fair for the employees to vote on it, and then that's that. In isolation, that too would be a very reasonable argument, and may even benefit all parties. The reality though, is that it would undermine the basic principles of the US labour market, and either unions, or government would step in,probably both. I appreciate that's not a perfect example, and is simply to try and illustrate my point.

Ultimately though, I take your point and, to some extent, share your view. In isolation it's as black and white as that. The difficulty is that it's as much about the wider context, as it is the isolated circumstance.

It's a tough one, but I hope I've explained where I'm coming from on it.

 

With respect, you're refusing to understand that the issue is about generalities, and wider principles, and not simply Tesla and its employees. I've tried to explain this a little more in my response to Margate.

However, if it makes you happy, I'll play your game.

The unions are operating within a legally allowed framework. A framework that has been created over the years, by consensus between businesses and employees/unions. A very successful framework, as it happens. If thereore the majority of all parties are happy with that framework, with the notable exception of Tesla, then it's not mafia tactics, but free and open democracy.

Guess what? When you create a set of rules and principles, then sometimes they can appear unfair to one party. That's the nature of it. The purpose is to benefit most parties, most of the time, not all parties, all of the time. I agree with you, in isolation it appears one sided, but that's only if you willfully ignore the wider context.

What do you think would happen to me if I started a company in the US, where most employees voted to smoke in the office, ignore health and safety regulations, and pay some workers below minimum wage. I'd be stopped, by either unions or government, far more quickly and decisively, despite it being my wishes, and that of my employees. Is that mafia tactics, or is it simply that ecosystem upholding it's wider principles, because it was decided that they're for the good of all?

 

I have to wonder why some people desperately need Tesla to be unionized. The company doesn't want it, vast majority or workers don't. That should be the end of the story.

 

Its not just Tesla...

 

What evidence is there that the number of strikers is low, and that the majority of Tesla workers don't want to be part of the collective agreement?

 

That's why I think they need to pull out of Switzerland

Bye, bye, see ya. Lol

 

If I was Elon I'd tell Sweden Tesla's business model is not welcome in your country. Buh-bye.
I've read it in several places if I find the sources will post. Now post your sources that say Tesla workers want to unionize.

 

It doesn't work that way. The claim is yours, and it's been made repeatedly, so back it up.

I've never claimed Tesla workers in Sweden want to unionize. I've stated, correctly, that collective agreements are extremely common in Sweden.

Source: OECD https://www.oecd.org/employment/coll...ase-sweden.pdf

 

Here you go.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-empl...strike-sweden/This why they are attacking Tesla so viciously, they can't have people being happy at a non unionized company.

 

I knew it was going to be that. Anecdotal opinion pieces on Teslarati aren't evidence. You'll be quoting the Teslarati article with the "Tesla Sweden Club informal poll" next. So all those posts and it turns out they were all based on Teslarati garbage

 

Let's be honest no matter what I post you'll dismiss the source.

 

Not if you're citing legitimate sources with a reasonable level of credibility.

 

That you say are legit.

 

Ok. How about ones that aren't Teslarati.

 

As it happens Lex, I'd be reasonably comfortable accepting your source, as it not only represents a valid viewpoint, but also highlights the bigger issue, and the difficulties that presents regarding any resolution. It also highlights and supports the stance you take on the matter, which I don't think is an unreasonable one, if one looks at it purely in terms of Tesla vs unions. It was also my understanding though that 120 union mechanics at a Tesla subsidiary requested a collective bargaining agreement, which Tesla refused, and is why the unions stepped in in the first place. Such agreements aren't mandatory, and unions in Sweden usually only step in when asked by employees/members.

I'm also sympathetic to the view that the unions are somewhat throwing their weight around, and would only caveat that with the fact that they're fighting a wider principle, with future implications, and are only using the tools that they're allowed to use. On the flip side, I'd be somewhat cautious in assuming that everything at Tesla is all happy clappy. Whilst it's no doubt true that some workers are happy to be non unionised, it's also true that Musk has historically sacked workers for being pro union, and threatened to remove stock options from workers who unionise. So Tesla aren't above the same kind of tactics either.

In fairness to Tesla, they claim to be offering a decent pay and conditions package, and don't see why they should have to have unions involved. I get that. In equal fairness to the unions, they've been trying to negotiate this with Tesla for 5 years, and are only now going on strike, as negotiations have gone nowhere. I am curious about one thing though. If Musk claims that he's offering better pay and conditions, why is he fighting this? Collective agreements aren't asking for any more, they just set minimum levels, to offer a base level of protection. If it's just a matter of principle, then he's backed himself into a corner, as it allows for the opposite principle to be equally fought for.

In many ways I can see both sides. Ironically, the difficulty in resolving it comes from the fact that Sweden's labour market is far more free and less regulated than that of places like the US and UK, where not only pay, but things like conditions and pensions are negotiated, rather than set by government. It's worth highlighting, because workers in Sweden don't have as many legal protections as those elsewhere, which is why unions and collective bargaining are so important. As such, there's nothing that government can do to get involved, and they can only sit back and watch.

I suppose then the more interesting question has little to do with the pros and cons of the Swedish model, or Tesla's preferences, and instead, in such a circumstance, what would you do to resolve it?