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?
That's why I also said "the way things work here" because it's a cultural thing; you just don't mess with worker's right in Europe. It might not be against the law, but it's not a normal practise. From what I found online last time this happened in Sweden was in 1920s. I'm not from Sweden but I am European and I know that unions and strikes are a normal thing and everybody supports them.
If Elon tries to forcefully break up a strike, he will just amass the wrath of other unions and the entire Swedish population turning an issue of collective agreement into a political problem. I honestly don't see this ending well for Tesla.
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 of the legal right to employ strikebreakers in 1938 when they switched to the "Swedish Model" based more on collective bargaining than on government involvement.
Someone used to the US laws should be aware that different countries don't use the same legal framework.
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 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.
They're kinda illegal in Germany, actually. Based on a legal change in 2017, employers are prohibited from hiring temp workers[0] to take over work from striking employees. There are probably loopholes by having excess temp workers on staff at all times rather than hiring them specifically during a strike but this kind of redundancy is probably frowned upon by shareholders more than the lost productivity of a strike.
[0]: Specifically the law addresses "loan workers" but Germany has fairly strict laws surrounding so-called "independent contractors" in these roles: https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11
Based on the attitude he has shown to compliance at X, I guess he thinks that's not a problem he can't solve by just throwing money at it when push comes to shove. He's infamously been quoted as saying he's okay representing himself in court because he's been sued so many times. I don't think he listens to lawyers unless they can credibly convince him he'll go to prison otherwise.
I take it you missed the part where he shot his mouth off in public about buying Twitter and then got dragged into court and forced to actually buy it.
Tesla is not doing anything illegal as far as I understand.
Looks like there is an expectation that Tesla behaves in a certain way in Sweden because "that's way we've always done it" but that's not in law. Tesla is sticking to the law, as far as I understand.
I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law.
Of course, if workes and unions disagree they can also use their legal rights to try to force Tesla to reconsider. But if they wanted to make all companies behave in a certain way they they should have put that in law.
> I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law.
Are you serious? Should you only be allowed to criticise companies (and people?) when they break the law? That would be the end of free speech.
Obeying the law is not synonymous with doing good. The law is the very bottom line, but there's tons of shitty behaviour that's perfectly legal. That doesn't mean it's okay. There are tons of ways in which you can be an asshole without doing anything illegal. You won't go to prison, but people will criticise and avoid you.
Don't make the law your only basis for morality. Laws can be wrong, and they're certainly not enough. Because if you do that, you're basically demanding that every aspect of society be completely legislated, and that's a really bad idea.
There's different levels in criticism. Here Tesla seems to be hammered simply for sticking with the law. This is excessive, IMO: if what they are doing is so outrageous then that should not be allowed in law.
Companies are totally entitled to stick to the law, but they also need to then deal with the fact that narrow compliance with the law might bring them into conflict with parts of society (who in turn might stick to the law in dealing with them).
That said, we already have determined that generally just "sticking to the law" isn't a great defense in all situations anyway.
In a free society based on the rule of law, you cannot demand that anyone goes beyond the law. That's a key principle.
Now, as mentioned, in business other parties can also use their legal rights to bring about negotiations, but let's not depict Tesla as horrible for simply staying within the law...
We have long determined that the rule of law is only one component of a functioning society. There is a lot of stuff beyond the rule of law that makes things work. Anyone not understanding that will have trouble in any society.
How is that in any way mob rule? Is having care and consideration for your fellow citizens mob rule, for example?
What you want is much closer to mob rule, as seen by societies using the law for horrible purposes. Narrow legalistic views allow for the most horrible atrocities.
Would you be happy in a society where everybody lies to you all the time? Lying isn't illegal (except under oath), but it would make for a really shitty society.
You can absolutely expect people to do more than just obey the law. Everybody does. Tesla does not, and that may lead Tesla's employees to use their perfectly legal right to strike. And by your standards, you can't demand that they don't strike, because it's legal.
But it's a shitty basis for a relationship. If Tesla wants its workers to do good work for them, they need to listen to their workers.
Solely sticking to the law means paying minimum wage with maximum hours for any work type with no benefits. Negotiation and better terms are not part of the law, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to do without. Union agreements are the standard way to do this here, and refusing to negotiate with unions means refusing to cooperate with the work force market.
They can disagree with unions and the people within the law, just as they can fail as a business from making enemies of the whole country within the law. Civil customs and agreements are not meant to be law.
There is no minimum wage in sweden, because in central european labour fashion they expect labour and companies to cooperate and come to a mutually agreeable and socially beneficial rate.
Although germany recently ended up introducing a legal minimum wage because an other US corp was being too shit about it (I don’t remember if it was amazon or something like walmart).
Sweden does not have a minimum wage because unions are more efficient at ensuring livable wages than legislation and setting a legal minimum wage in this scenario would only benefit the bargaining position of employers by giving them a low-ball reference value.
This is very different from the neoliberal argument against minimum wages which boils down to "if we need to pay workers a livable wage our profit margins would be tighter" or more charitably "if we need to pay workers a livable wage some jobs would become unprofitable and we'd have to lay those people off" (which only holds true when the jobs are non-essential to the company in such a way that laying people off doesn't mean outsourcing them - a lot of low-paying jobs are absolutely essential to business operations but are seen as cost centers because they don't directly contribute to revenue).
The reason the EU is "pushing for minimum wages" is that the EU pushed for the liberalisation of markets in EU countries some twenty years ago (and its various extensions thereof) and that led to an increase in wealth gaps, a loss of income security, gutting of social welfare systems and the proliferation of temp work agencies (which e.g. in Germany were illegal up to that point and offer an easy way to sidestep unions). Minimum wage is a bandaid for the gashing wound left by market liberalisation.
This is beside the point of what a legal minimum wage is, orthogonal with negotiations through unions, and has nothing to do with liberalisation.
There is no reason for Sweden not to have a legal minimum wage. From an outsider's POV this really seems to be psycho-rigid stance "no our system does not need one!" when it actually does not hurt the system or negotiations through unions at all.
In a way, I think what's happening with Tesla is making noise because it's putting them on the spot. They are running around crying "but you can't do that!!" because the fact is that actually Tesla can and that's exposing the weakness of the whole system, which is actually informal and not backed by law at all.
That's not saying that Tesla won't back down and reach a deal with the unions, but they are only doing what they are entitled to do.
Following the law is a very low bar because of that, since employers and unions are supposed to be able to sort things out between themselves. If companies begin to just "stick to the law" the system will break down obviously and a new system will have to replace it.
Yes. That also smacks of corporatism and "old boys club" probably in part because Sweden is a small country and, I imagine, everyone used to know everyone else in business and political circles.
Well nothing in the law say you need to be polite, say hello, thank you and good bye. However good luck having decent collaboration and commercial entries if you yell at everyone and insult them.
Criticism is fine, but I think people should be careful not to conflate the two.
It’s fine to say “I think Tesla should pay more and not hire scabs”
The difference between law and opinion determines how this is enforced.
If actions are illegal, the government forces compliance.
If it is a matter of opinion, then it is up to the involved parties to sort it out themselves. This could be based on their negotiating leverage. Strikes, scabs, boycotts, and sympathy strikes are all fair game
When it comes to ethics, the law should always be seen as the bare minimum, not the bar that we as society should actually expect people and companies to clear.
The problem is that what you call "ethics" is arbitrary. The law applied uniformly is actually a safety net to protect everyone against arbitrary actions.
That's why the rule of law has been so important in the struggle for free societies and liberty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker#Europe