[arghwhat]

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.

[masklinn]

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).

[mytailorisrich]

Actually, the EU is pushing for minimum wages in all countries but Sweden is pushing back because their system apparently does not need it...

[hnbad]

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.

[mytailorisrich]

I think you mean "effective".

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.

[hnbad]

Literally everything you say in defense of Tesla and against the striking workers can be inversed without becoming any less true.

As others have pointed out, you seem to misunderstand what laws are and what they are for. They're not special and they're not magic, they're just slightly more rigid frames padded with layers of contracts and ultimately held together by good will.

To put it another way: a law can not stop me from killing you. Gun laws can make it more difficult for me to acquire a suitable weapon to do so, laws requiring the presence of an armed police officer at every corner may make it more difficult without having to deal with the police officer first, or immigration laws may make it more difficult to reach you, and murder being illegal means I'm very likely to suffer consequences after killing you (or after failing to do so if the attempt is illegal) but if I'm in front of you with a loaded gun in my hand, what's stopping me from killing you isn't the law.

I'm not saying Tesla can't do things differently as long as they operate within the law. I'm not even arguing whether its immoral for them to do so[0]. I'm just saying that laws are in the most real sense of the word socially constructed and they're an artefact of society, not the other way around. If laws are in conflict with a society's understanding of justice, eventually the laws will change, one way or another.

[0]: It is, although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone - which is fine, of course, in terms of it being possible for your ethical system to be internally consistent. It just makes me think less of you as a human.

[mytailorisrich]

Where did I say anything against striking workers?

I am only pointing out that this is not black and white, and that it is hypocritical to be outraged at Tesla when they are not doing anything illegal, especially when Sweden has historically refused to legislate. But I guess there is also a part of Elon-bashing here.

I don't "misunderstand what laws are", by the way, on the contrary. That's why I don't like mod rule and the replies on this here are actually worrying.

This whole thread is rather low quality, I am afraid to say... "Tesla bad" and that's it, basically.

> although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone

This has nothing to do with what I wrote and is no more than a thin-veiled ad hominem insult.