Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yunohn 959 days ago
I support unionization, but I still wouldn’t call a single sentence saying “we need a collective agreement” as “informative”. I would expect some details around what exactly is causing the safety issues they claim.
4 comments

What you’re asking for is in the article. The “single sentence” is actually three paragraphs which explain why this is a concern.

> what exactly is causing the safety issues they claim

This is in the third of those three paragraphs in the article:

> The collective agreements are negotiated on a sector-by-sector basis, and employees are guaranteed the wages and working conditions that are standard across the sector. This allows for companies to operate on a level playing field, while avoiding the risk of any one employer distorting competition in the sector by imposing poor conditions on their employees.

Tesla doesn’t allow the employees to work under the same conditions as dictated by the agreed-upon standards.

I don't see them claiming that there are safety issues in Tesla factories.
Are you from the US, by chance?

Collective agreements / collective bargaining are very common in europe, and their purpose is to establish a baseline of guarantees, compensation and generally workers rights.

Collective agreements are also incredibly common (in my eu country they cover like 98% of the workers).

The main reason for a company to avoid those is because of the intention to offer lower rights, worse pay, and less guarantees (job security / protection from discrimination etc).

These articles from Sweden give those concepts for granted because they usually are taken for granted in most Europe.

This isn't about rights; rights are in law or constitutions. This is just about mutual contractual obligations.
Why do you expect that here?
what, you don't expect unions to release pamphlets to appease random weirdos on the internet?