[carlosjobim]

> Or do you also belive that the nordics is full of socialists?

Well, yes. Although the world is a lot more complicated than left vs right, the socialist parties have generally been the largest parties in Nordic countries, and the "conservative" parties do not rock the boat too much when they're in power. Because the voters wouldn't accept that.

> compared to the USA

It's a matter of taste and of values, but directly comparing these very different societies doesn't work well.

The unions "own" the government in the extent that they where tightly connected to the Socialist Democratic party that ruled Sweden for decades and are responsible for much of today's legislation. If you were a member of a union, they would on your behalf sign you up as a member of the Socialist Democratic party, until 1991.

So the unions are intertwined with the government in Nordic countries to an extent that is very unfamiliar to peopler from some other countries.

Another example is the government church in all the nordic countries, which is not much talked about, but indeed strange to people from other backgrounds.

[ivarmedi]

> Because the voters wouldn't accept that.

So in other words the unions don't own the government so much as they own the voters (or is it the other way around)? I'd call a decision that voters agree on democracy.

> The unions "own" the government in the extent that they where tightly connected to the Socialist Democratic party that ruled Sweden for decades and are responsible for much of today's legislation. If you were a member of a union, they would on your behalf sign you up as a member of the Socialist Democratic party, until 1991.

Another explanation could be that both sides of the political spectrum agrees and thinks that the power re: labor decisions such as this _should_ lie with the unions, regardless of left/right lean. Even the "right" parties in Sweden are pro unions.

> Another example is the government church in all the nordic countries, which is not much talked about, but indeed strange to people from other backgrounds.

Huh? This hasn't been the case on paper since the year 2000 in Sweden, but in practice far longer than that. The church might still be called "Church of Sweden", but it has nothing to do with the government.

[carlosjobim]

> So in other words the unions don't own the government so much as they own the voters (or is it the other way around)?

Yes, that's a good way to put it. Although memberships are rapidly decreasing in later years. The reasons for that can be saved for another discussion.

> Another explanation could be that both sides of the political spectrum agrees and thinks that the power re: labor decisions such as this _should_ lie with the unions, regardless of left/right lean. Even the "right" parties in Sweden are pro unions.

There really isn't any "both sides" of the political spectrum in Nordic countries when it comes to labour. The way the "right wing" parties can get elected at all is to say "We promise we're not going to do things differently than the left wing, but we'll give you a $100 more per year in tax deductions".

> Huh? This hasn't been the case on paper since the year 2000 in Sweden, but in practice far longer than that. The church might still be called "Church of Sweden", but it has nothing to do with the government.

It is still the case in Finland, Norway and Denmark. These countries have a government church, that performs government functions, and levies taxes to the church from your salary. You still have to fill in a form if you want to exit the government church. The year 2000 is not so far away, compared to when other nations separated church and state.

And AFAIK the former state church of Sweden (along with neighbouring countries) is still controlled by secular political parties, whose candidates are elected by church members. The largest church party by a huge margin being the Socialist Democrat party.

[ivarmedi]

> There really isn't any "both sides" of the political spectrum in Nordic countries when it comes to labour. The way the "right wing" parties can get elected at all is to say "We promise we're not going to do things differently than the left wing, but we'll give you a $100 more per year in tax deductions".

That's exactly my point. I think we're in general agreement about the state of things, but perhaps not in the reasons behind it. I see a rational consensus and belief in a system. I don't believe that these parties pretend something simply to gain votes, and then, after gaining power, do nothing to further this alleged political agenda.

> It is still the case in Finland, Norway and Denmark. These countries have a government church, that performs government functions, and levies taxes to the church from your salary. You still have to fill in a form if you want to exit the government church.

The church tax still exists in Sweden, and is opt-out in a similar way as you describe for the other Nordic countries. The tax is used for things like church weddings, burial costs, etc. I agree that this is a little strange, but the fact of the matter is that this system (at least in Sweden) doesn't apply only to the Church of Sweden. If you are a member of another religious communities, the fee can instead go to this entity. (In Swedish: https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/...)

> The year 2000 is not so far away, compared to when other nations separated church and state.

Be that as it may, the time span wasn't really part of the initial discussion. And people living day-to-day up here knows that the church has little to no say in anything in society. It has been like that for a long time. I think if anything people coming from elsewhere might be surprised how secular Swedish people/Scandinavians are. I don't think anyone that moved here (or even grows up here) would ever think about the fact that there was a "state church" not even 25 years ago.