[toyg]

> There are also statements from Tesla mechanics in the press to the same effect

Scabs :) more seriously: let's say I have 100 employees; I underpay 90 of them, and overpay 10. When the union comes knocking, I roll out the 10 overpaid ones to whinge in the press. I'm not saying this is Tesla's case, just that all declarations (particularly from employers) have to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

That's not to say that unions are always right, some of them are undoubtedly power-hungry organizations more interested in survival than in their core mission (like all institutions). But typically, cries from employers about their agreements being "better" are just because they don't want to be tied to the guarantees that union agreements contain; nobody stops them from paying above what stated in the agreement anyway.

[robertlagrant]

> nobody stops them from paying above what stated in the agreement anyway

That's not the point - the point is they don't want to be strong-armed via collective bargaining. We have a market to enforce market rates; you don't need a union to do that.

[toyg]

You call it strong-arming, I call it negotiating among equals. When unions are involved, the original imbalance of capital owners vs labor becomes more of a level playing field, and the resulting agreements tend to be fairer than they would otherwise be.

Obviously, if you are a capital owner used to leverage your asymmetric power, this sucks. It probably sucks even if you're one of the few workers who happen to be able to be treated almost as peers (typically because of skill scarcity), since the union might concede something you enjoy in exchange for guarantees that you don't (think you) need. But for the workforce as a whole, collective bargaining is typically a net positive. Which is a big part of why Scandinavian countries have some of the highest quality of life scores in the world.

[danaris]

"The market will solve this" only works with an idealized free market.

Labour is the very definition of an un-free market. Employees are looking for the very means to survive, while employers (especially ones like Tesla) are just looking for ways to make themselves even richer than they already are.

A free market, in the sense of "market theory", requires (among several other conditions, very few of which apply here) that what is being negotiated over is a commodity. Neither side can have their very existence at stake, and what's being traded can be swapped with another provider's version of it for no (or very low) cost.

[robertlagrant]

Their existence isn't at stake. It's only at stake if there's only one employer, e.g. in the total opposite of a free market.

Your phrasing, e.g. "even richer than they already are" is really not helping. Anyone can start a business, even a tiny one. They take on risk. They need people to survive this risk. Those people want close to no risk, and a salary and other things. They get those not because of labour unions, but because these two types of people need each other.

[toyg]

There are so many variables, it's fundamentally disingenuous to say "just find another job". Maybe Tesla is the only car factory in town, and your skills are very specific to car manufacturing. Maybe you have a disability that makes it extra-challenging to job-hunt. Maybe you borrowed money to fix your home, and you can't afford to be out of work for a month as you look for another gig. Etc etc.

"The free market of labor" is anything but.

[bjornsing]

Personally I think the market is a pretty good mechanism to handle that: if you underpay employees will seek employment elsewhere.