[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.

[s1artibartfast]

and Tesla was totally unaware of all this?

To be clear, the main thing I am objecting to in these posts is the sentiment that posters have a superior knowledge, legal or cultrial, that tesla does not.

[eesmith]

Remember, this started from markjonsona989's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036615 :

"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?"

I read this as an statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so.

My comments were not concerning Tesla. They were to clarify why the law is relevant, in response to your comment "I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036925 .

[s1artibartfast]

>I read this as an statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so.

This is the sentiment I am pushing back on. It seems very arrogant for amateur internet posters to think they know more than the tesla legal team and tesla management team after reading about the topic for 2 minutes.

It is fine to not understand the tesla position, and fine to not not agree with with the morality.

I just dont think it is reasonable for people to assume they are more knowledgeable about the detail simply because they dont understand or agree.

It reduces to "I dont understand their actions, so they must be stupider than me", which I think is a foolish response, but unfortunately quite common.

Tesla is the one with access to their cost modeling for hiring scabs and the legal team. They know the long term costs of union agreements, and if they spread to other countries. They have teams of lawyers.

But no, surely some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.

[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?