Interesting to hear the hackernews take, I'm imagining it's wildly different than mine but good to broaden your perspectives of "what is" maybe especially around here.
For me this is pleasant news. It's a nice change to see workers and labour retain some ability to project their power, which in turn is in the interest of the vast majority of people.
Since the inception of modern private capital, labour disputes have always tended to be skewed towards corporate interests but it seems that this trend has been rapidly accelerating in recent decades.
Well traditional Swedish so mostly agree with it and it's nice to see the disruptors just not being able to steamroll over a 100 years of progress just because they're popular and from the US. Even if I like disruption, inovation and entreprenaurs in general.
Do some research about the scandinavian model instead of just spreading the company propaganda. It's beneficial both for the workers and the company. This actually isn't rocket science compared to other things the owner involved in.
The only universal truths I know are in category theory, and maybe physics depending on your disposition. But that word has nothing to do with economics or the social sciences.
P.S. Is private capital included in your definition of "institutions"? Or is it only labour unions that, at least on paper, actually represent the interests of the majority of people (since most people are workers and not shareholders).
The capital itself is not an institution, but organizations fueled by it are (whether private or public)
> labour unions that, at least on paper, actually represent the interests of the majority of people (since most people are workers and not shareholders)
Though workers outnumber shareholders at some companies, Tesla shareholders almost certainly outnumber its employees due to (1) nearly all employees being shareholders from stock grants, and (2) unusually high retail investor interest (large number of shareholders)
In essentially every case outside of a rounding error, most people within a given company (or society) derive their income from selling their labour on the job market. This makes them workers, and thus they share a common material interest with each other. A very small minority of people in a company (and society) instead derive the primary portion of their income through the speculation of their capital. Their material interest is contrary to that of the workers, since they would profit from less stringent labour laws and cheaper wages, and vice versa.
Even if we consider pathalogical cases such as a blue-chip stock like TSLA that has become the focus of brief and anomalous phenomenon of retail trading, the magnitude of capital invested by retail traders into publicly traded companies is negligible, relative to the economic influence of traditional investors such as hedgefunds, and other whales in finance.
And even still, retail shareholders by definition engage in the economy primarily by selling their labour. That is how they generate the income required to put food on the table. Therefore they are still primarily workers and thus share the same material interest as other workers, as opposed to shareholders.
Therefore in every case we can say that the claim
>Tesla shareholders almost certainly outnumber its employees
I guessed this was about the media/rocket/car/soon to be bank company but I guess the "institution" here for you where the 150 mechanics grouping together?
I don't know how easy it is for a non-Swedish journalist to get these numbers. The union website isn't specific, but states in their FAQ (auto-translated with Google translate built into the website): https://www.ifmetall.se/aktuellt/tesla/darfor-tvingas-if-met...
The company claims that they have at least as nice conditions without having to sign a contract?
That's not true. Their insurance coverage is not as good as what is in the collective agreement, they also do not pay as much into the pension and their wages are below average for what we have in the industry.
The company's employees lack:
• A complete package of insurances with Fora
• The comprehensive transition support contained in the main agreement between the social partners
• Wages are lower than the average in the Motor Industry Agreement
• Without a collective agreement, annual wage increases are not guaranteed
• They do not have the option of a part-time pension
14 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] threadFor me this is pleasant news. It's a nice change to see workers and labour retain some ability to project their power, which in turn is in the interest of the vast majority of people.
Since the inception of modern private capital, labour disputes have always tended to be skewed towards corporate interests but it seems that this trend has been rapidly accelerating in recent decades.
P.S. Is private capital included in your definition of "institutions"? Or is it only labour unions that, at least on paper, actually represent the interests of the majority of people (since most people are workers and not shareholders).
> labour unions that, at least on paper, actually represent the interests of the majority of people (since most people are workers and not shareholders)
Though workers outnumber shareholders at some companies, Tesla shareholders almost certainly outnumber its employees due to (1) nearly all employees being shareholders from stock grants, and (2) unusually high retail investor interest (large number of shareholders)
Even if we consider pathalogical cases such as a blue-chip stock like TSLA that has become the focus of brief and anomalous phenomenon of retail trading, the magnitude of capital invested by retail traders into publicly traded companies is negligible, relative to the economic influence of traditional investors such as hedgefunds, and other whales in finance.
And even still, retail shareholders by definition engage in the economy primarily by selling their labour. That is how they generate the income required to put food on the table. Therefore they are still primarily workers and thus share the same material interest as other workers, as opposed to shareholders.
Therefore in every case we can say that the claim
>Tesla shareholders almost certainly outnumber its employees
is a misleading one, in this context.
The company claims that they have at least as nice conditions without having to sign a contract?
That's not true. Their insurance coverage is not as good as what is in the collective agreement, they also do not pay as much into the pension and their wages are below average for what we have in the industry.
The company's employees lack:
• A complete package of insurances with Fora
• The comprehensive transition support contained in the main agreement between the social partners
• Wages are lower than the average in the Motor Industry Agreement
• Without a collective agreement, annual wage increases are not guaranteed
• They do not have the option of a part-time pension
• They also do not have reduced working hours
-----
They have another page with this example Motor Services Agreement: https://www.ifmetall.se/globalassets/avdelningar/forbundskon...
It states a monthly salary of 34107 SEK with 8.5 hour shifts (30 minutes of which is a break), and has a pie chart of various benefits.