[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.