[AnthonyMouse]

The two situations have an obvious difference. It's hard for McDonalds to sell Big Macs in a country without McDonalds restaurants in it. It's not hard for a car company to move production to a different country; that happens all the time.

So pulling out entirely is a much more realistic option for a car company than a restaurant, and as a result the car company has more leverage and both sides know it. And they can pretty much hold out indefinitely because in the meantime they can just make the cars somewhere else, the same as they would forever if they left.

It's not obvious what the unions have to hold over them when "stop making things in that country" is a completely viable alternative for the company which might have been nothing more than a coin flip even before this.

[Hikikomori]

Tesla doesn't make anything in Sweden. Their workforce is mostly mechanics working at car service centers. What the unions can do is make it very hard for Tesla to operate in Sweden. They cannot hire other companies to perform something for them, no electricians to repair charging stations, no cleaning services, cannot source any parts for cars there, etc. They can of course hire people directly to do these things and likely pay a premium to be able to attract people and get the things they need from other countries and use their own drivers to get that to Sweden.

Sympathy strikes might spread to the other Nordic countries and maybe even Germany, where they are already fighting IG Metall. Then the federation of Nordic transport unions have proclaimed their support for IF Metall, so Tesla might be unable to get anything shipped in these countries.

Or they could just sign the agreement that sets basic minimum requirements which supposedly they already exceed.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Their workforce is mostly mechanics working at car service centers.

So why don't they stop having those and let independent shops do it? Repairs used to be a major profit center for traditional dealerships but electric cars are supposed to cut that way back, right?

> They cannot hire other companies to perform something for them, no electricians to repair charging stations, no cleaning services, cannot source any parts for cars there, etc.

Why does this bear such a strong resemblance to organized crime?

Can you imagine if corporations could do this? You get into a disagreement with Microsoft and can't do business with any company that uses Windows anymore?

I kind of hope they find a way around it just to fight back against the unreasonableness of it.

> Or they could just sign the agreement that sets basic minimum requirements which supposedly they already exceed.

"If once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane."

It's obvious that the reason both sides care about this is the precedent it sets rather than any specific details of what they're negotiating over today.

[Hikikomori]

Tesla could do that. Nothing stops them from hiring someone else to provide this service, someone that has a collective agreement in place. This is the most likely outcome here as the other options are withdrawing from Sweden or signing the agreement.

American companies also has a pretty strong resemblance to organized crime.

What do you believe is so unreasonable in the collective agreement? Supposedly Tesla already exceeds the minimum bar it sets.

More than 90% of workers in Sweden have a collective agreement. This isn't the first time that an American company ran into the Swedish system, they've set the precedent multiple times already, this isn't going to be any different.