[eesmith]

The law is relevant. In the US, because of the NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. ruling, companies may use strikebreakers as a permanently replacement for striking workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg....

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.

[MichaelZuo]

That contradicts the parent's point that "Strikebreakers are not illegal in EU.". Since Sweden is part of the EU.

[eesmith]

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.

[s1artibartfast]

Maybe Im dense, but I miss the point of what you trying to say.

Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.

>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.

It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?

[eesmith]

The point is there is a big difference between "legal consequences" and the "legally allowed consequences" I described.

I think sympathy strikes are legal in Sweden. That makes them a legally allowed consequence. If I understand the Denmark McDonald's case correctly, then the Swedish equivalent of the Teamsters could decide to not deliver parts to a Tesla repair shop.

> Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.

Yes. Why is it so important to only look at what the law says about strikebreakers? There's also the overall economics.

As I understand it, in the US you can fire someone on strike and replace them with a permanent worker, so long as it is justified economically and not due "anti-union animus" - and the latter is hard to prove.

As I understand it, going on strike in Sweden not considered grounds for terminating the employment.

So if the employer hires a strike breaker - which is legal! - then once the worker ends the strike, the Swedish employer must continue to employ the worker and the strike breaker, under much stronger employee protections than in the US. That makes it expensive to hire strike breakers.

This makes the US a much easier place to use strikebreakers, even before considering its combination with anti-worker laws like Taft-Hartley.

[s1artibartfast]

I still dont see where you think Tesla has made a misinformed calculation, error, or mistake. Are you claiming the managers at Tesla dont know the cost of hiring a strike breaker?

Furthermore, much of what you said is not true with respect to the US.

Striking workers can almost never be fired in the USA [1]. The only "difference" is you dont have to keep on the strike breakers.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

[Moru]

Tesla can only hire strike breakers on their own premises. Sympathy strikes will hit their supplylines latest next week and then there will be no more new teslas, no more spare parts. The union is expecting Tesla to pull out of Sweden before signing a contract.

The workers get 100% payed while striking, and the unions coffers are deep, they can wait.

[eesmith]

Your link points out "except that if your employer hired permanent replacements, returning strikers are placed on a preferential hiring list."

That means it make take years until you have the job back, depending on turnover and the number of replacements.

How is that not the same as having your job replaced by a strikebreaker?