[gabeaweg]

I know I will be crucified for this, but doesn't it seem like a dangerous precedent that a public utility can choose to stop working for certain companies/citizens? I understand striking in a binary way, working or not working, but being a public utility and deciding who you serve depending on whatever criteria, be it politics or whatever, seems like it could get ugly depending on the circumstances. Imagine if physicians or bus drivers did this.

[wolframhempel]

I'm surprised that this is something that needs to be said with caution. Does anybody want to live in a world where individual government institutions selectively shun private citizens or companies? A world where - rather than in a court of law - you're punished by the electricity company deciding to cut your power?

[therouwboat]

Its not really government thats wants to block deliveries, more like government owned company is supporting workers and unions.

[whats_a_quasar]

The government has the obligation to deliver services to residents and businesses. If some government workers refuse to do the work, the government's obligation is unchanged, and they need to find another way to fulfill it

[mrmanner]

The government has an obligation to deliver services according to its laws and agreements it has entered. The current view of the courts seems to be that there’s no law clearly defining an obligation for the state so provide postal services in this specific situation.

Will be interesting to see where this ends.

[JumpCrisscross]

> government has the obligation to deliver services to residents and businesses

Postnord is a private company [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostNord

[s1artibartfast]

I think this case is interesting in that it tests the distinction. It isnt a government agency, but it is 100% government owned and provides a public service.

I could see an argument that delivery is not a de jure function of government, but it certainly seems to a de facto function of government.

If a country delegates the execution of it's obligations to a private party, I would expect that it is still responsible for their fulfillment.

[Jensson]

Private

"The owners of PostNord Group are the state of Sweden (60 percent) and the state of Denmark (40 percent)."

It was a merger between the two countries postal services that were created over 300 years ago, it still has no private shareholders. It is still very closely tied to government rulings and laws around postal services.

[JumpCrisscross]

> still very closely tied to government rulings and laws around postal services

Sure. But you can't sue Fannie Mae for denying you guarantees under the equal protection clause.

[whats_a_quasar]

From that link:

> "The owners of PostNord Group are the state of Sweden (60 percent) and the state of Denmark (40 percent)"

So no, it's a state-owned company. And most national postal services have some sort of equal-service guarantee in law, though I don't know about Sweden.

[mrmanner]

I think the notion of a “public utility” in the sense of “common carrier” may be more important in common law than in the Nordic tradition. If Postnord had been a government agency, results may have been different.

But, and this is important, a mail carrier is not allowed to discriminate freely under Swedish law either. Labour conflicts are an exception (in many areas of law) simply because almost no one wants the government to intervene. Collective bargaining with some conflict to get the Elons of the world to play along is simply working out better.

[paulddraper]

Chilling to say the least.