[gruez]

>The union doesn't force anyone, it's a collective action, the workers are the union, they've decided to not deliver to Tesla because Tesla is infringing on the most fundamental labour right in Sweden.

That's a strange way of putting it. Is the us federal government notification not "forcing" anyone to pay taxes, or not smoke weed, because the us is a democracy and therefore it's "collective action"?

[SwedishExpat]

Can you realistically have a vote to stop paying taxes or to smoke weed?

Because Seko could have a vote to deliver to Tesla if they wanted, but ultimately the Unions are on the employees side so we're okay with their decisions.

[gruez]

> Can you realistically have a vote to stop paying taxes or to smoke weed?

This is inevitably going to turn into a quibble about whether representation and/or the electoral college constitutes "true" democracy, so I'm going to head that off by amending my previous comment to be at the state level (rather than the federal level). There's several states that had ballot measures on tax increases and/or marijuana legalization, and failed, for example:

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Marijuana_Legalization,_Prop...

https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Proposition_C,_Medical_Mari...

https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Initiative,_Questio...

In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.

[SwedishExpat]

> In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.

Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost. You could leave your US citizenship too, I guess, by moving. But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?

[gruez]

>Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost.

Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost", otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect, rather than hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers.

>But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?

Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not. I think taxes are a net positive for everyone in society, but I'm under no illusions that everyone's forced to pay it.

[xorcist]

> otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect,

Tesla is doing exactly this. It was the first thing they did. (The exact amount however is not public.)

It's called "breaking the strike" and has been used for over a century. It's par for the game and every union trains to expects it.

[SwedishExpat]

> Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost"

It really is! To leave a union you just leave. You'll miss out on some perks like topping up your unemployment insurance though.

> Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not.

You can get most of the perks without being a member, because membership is anonymous within companies and unions have argued that everyone receives the benefits due to this! So you can have most of the perks of a union without paying "taxes", but I think it's fair to chip into the pot.

[piva00]

What? I really do not understand the analogy, would be good to expand on how it relates to the current situation.

[gruez]

If you support taxes (or striking) and the government (or the union) forces you to pay taxes (or strike), you're not being "forced". So far so good. But what if you don't support taxes (or striking)? You might think taxes are a good thing and are necessary for a functioning society, but it's still pretty clear that for someone that doesn't want to pay taxes, they're forced to pay taxes.

[SiempreViernes]

>If [...] the government [...] forces you to pay taxes [...], you're not being "forced". So far so good.

Wat? In a discussion about if someone is being forced to take an action, consider not overloading the string "forced" with several meanings.

[gruez]

Saying something isn't "forced" is the opposite of "overloading the string "forced" with several meanings". Also, in the broader context of this argument, I'm for an more expansive definition of "forced" and replying to someone who thinks whatever the union is doing isn't "forcing" anyone. Therefore I'm actually granting my opponent some leeway. If you think the above circumstance also counts as "forced", that actually supports my claim that whatever the union is doing is "forcing" people.

[SiempreViernes]

Sorry, that also doesn't parse into a comprehensible argument shrugs

[xorcist]

If you don't want to strike, then don't strike. What is the issue here?

[gruez]

I'm under the impression that the strikes are being enforced by the union. In other words if you're a union member, and the union voted to strike, you can't unilaterally decide to continue working. Is this not the case?

[xorcist]

How would that work with basic human rights such as the freedom of association? And how could it be enforced, under civil law?

Of course you are free to break the strike or whatever feels right for you. But it might not be compatible with membership in the union, so they may well exercise their right to not keep you around as a member if you are actively trying to sabotage their work.

[piva00]

You can work, you can't be part of the union. Not being a member doesn't remove any benefits the union might negotiate with the employer, you just don't have access to the perks of the union (higher income insurance is usually the most important one).

I suggest learning more about the Swedish model before spouting opinions on how things work here, you don't understand the system but feels entitled to argue on your assumptions.