> According to the ruling, Postnord must be allowed to comment first and now has three days. After that, the district court will make a new decision on the lawsuit.
So, my understanding is as follows (let me know if it's wrong):
* Yesterday's ruling was about ordering to allow the plate manufacturer to hand out plates before they go to Postnord
* This ruling is about the plates that are already with Postcard.
So it seems it's two different things. Also, putting feelings about Tesla and Musk aside, how common is the concept of not doing an overall strike but not doing work for one customer only. I fully support the right of the Tesla mechanics to strike but what about the right of postal workers not striking but not delivering Tesla packages (there was also previous example of dock workers not unloading cars). Is this a right in other countries, too. Can it be exercised for other postal customers for other purposes than their workers striking, e.g. for support of certain political beliefs?
The US version of a sympathy strike is a union contract that states that employees do not have to cross picket lines. For example, whenever there is a strike at my university, city buses don't go on campus and UPS doesn't make deliveries.
> Can it be exercised for other postal customers for other purposes than their workers striking, e.g. for support of certain political beliefs?
No - this is limited to labour market conflicts. The Swedish state (courts included) tries not to get involved in such conflicts. Both because of history (there were some unfortunate situations early last century) and because most voters are quite happy with how things work out.
> … When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, but insofar as it is meant to imply that the different legal environment is what accounts for the labor radicalism, this obviously has things backwards. The laws aren’t driving the labor radicalism, but rather the labor radicalism is driving the laws.
> […]
> If we [in the US] are ever going to get to Nordic levels of equality, it is really hard to imagine doing it without building a similarly powerful labor movement. You can certainly get some of the way there, such as by copying certain welfare programs, but without the unions, you’ll always be missing a key piece. And while legal and policy reforms can help build the labor movement some, the power of organized labor is not ultimately rooted in the state, but rather in the ability to halt production and wreak havoc even when the state is aligned against it.
Interesting article. It's not just a US vs European thing, however. According to this comparison document linked in the Wikipedia article [https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/gurn/00275.pdf] (dated 2007 so things may have changed), some countries in Europe also ban solidarity action:
"Solidarity action – supporting other workers in their primary action – is by now, in many countries, considered legal under certain conditions, exceptions being Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK. In Germany and Italy the situation with regard to the rules governing solidarity action is quite complex. In Spain its legality has to be established on a case-by-case basis"
My understanding was that the request was not for delivery, but to let Tesla take possession of the plates.
This seems reasonable to me. If postnord doesnt want to deliver to tesla, thats fine, but then they should reject packages addressed to tesla, not hold take them and hold them hostage.
There are two different cases. This case was for the post to delivered, it will go to court with no urgent changes. The case that Tesla should be able to pick up the plates at the factory had a preliminary judging that Tesla was allowed to pick it up during the trial.
How? When they get in postnord's possession they can't go anywhere without a postal worker handling them. Rejecting them and sending them back would be almost the same work process as delivering them to tesla.
Its not like they accept the packages by their front door and can deny them. They get them in bulk mixed up with all the other postage, and as they process them they will come across teslas'. Now they are in the system, in some bin or shelf. The postal workers are not processing teslas mail as that is the function of their sympathy strike. How do you return it? I'm not trying to be fastidious, I just don't see how "return or deny" can be a solution.
I think the parent comments are saying that it's unreasonable to refuse to return license plates as part of a mail strike. If the postal workers find they have possession of Tesla's plates, they should release them if Tesla shows up to try to pick them up. Refusing to process mail is one action, but effectively holding the plates hostage is a different action.
The simple solutions is to require postnord to return them to the manufacturer, or let Tesla come in with the police and get them.
If you have my property, refuse to hand it over, it is common for courts to allow repossession.
IF an autoshop has your car, they can boycott working on it, but they cant stop you from getting it. If they try, you can get a court order, go with the police, and pick it up.
Can you point to a specific provision of a specific trade agreement that this violates? Or explain why the US government should try to break a strike in a different country to bail out Musk?
Swedish labor unions are in all likelihood going to force Tesla to comply with normal Swedish labor practices, so Tesla can either go along with that or exit the market. It would be best for them to negotiate a settlement.
I'm broadly in favor of organized labor, but it seems very odd to me for a labor action to stop the state-run postal service from delivering to one customer in particular. The postal workers aren't Tesla employees. In the U.S., at least, government workers can strike against their government employer, but de-facto denying government services to a specific company would be way out of bounds.
> it seems very odd to me for a labor action to stop the state-run postal service from delivering to one customer in particular
We're seeing a country, and increasingly the Nordic region, express outrage against Musk. It's manifesting in a Scandinavian way. But were the same conditions ripe in America, we'd see registration delays and special fees, safety investigations and public hearings.
> were the same conditions ripe in America, we'd see registration delays and special fees, safety investigations and public hearings.
I don't think we would. America is a big country, and certainly governments can be obstructionist, particularly state and local governments. But that tends to be through permitting and courts, which makes it more predictable and easier to appeal. USPS doing something like this is inconceivable - reliable delivery of government services is very high priority.
> that tends to be through permitting and courts, which makes it more predictable and easier to appeal
Talk to a developer some time. Approvals are opaque and personal and rarely subject to judicial review. I'd prefer that to change. But to argue it's unprecedented or an affront to the rule of law would be ridiculous.
> USPS doing something like this is inconceivable
PostNord is technically a private company. (It's state owned.) This is more like the MPAA refusing to rate a movie, or giving a film a rating the producer doesn't like.
Real estate development is very localized. For sure agree that local governments on the coasts obstruct development, though Texas or Florida don't. My point was more that you implied that the U.S. also selectively blocks certain companies but through other means than labor, and I don't think that's true.
PostNord isn't private, it's state-owned by Sweden and Denmark.
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.
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?
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
"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.
Is there a law saying that Fannie Mae is the only company that can do X? Because that's the case with postnord: only they can handle these plates, by law.
That’s not exactly the case though - the court in the other Tesla case, against the government, has ordered the agency registering vehicles to ensure Tesla can pick up their plates directly from the manufacturer:
But there are laws around post packages similar to the US common carrier laws, you can't just reject packages due to not liking the sender or recipient. Every country has such laws around important services.
> there are laws around post packages similar to the US common carrier laws, you can't just reject packages due to not liking the sender or recipient. Every country has such laws around important services.
Yes! Sweden has laws around labour disputes. Again, these are deeply precedented. Even the experience of American companies being caught pants down in their respect is precedented.
But these things haven't been pitted against each other in court. The state has to provide these services according to law, but workers can strike according to law. So what happens when these two things oppose each other? That is what these lawsuits are supposed to figure out.
So it makes perfect sense to sue in this case. Clearing these things up is a really good thing.
But if Fannie Mae is unable or unwilling to perform the governmental functions it is contracted for, the government must find a new contractor who will, yes?
Unless the law specifically enshrines the privilege of one named private party above others?
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties.
I can't stand Tesla/Musk but I would not be happy if this happened in my country. If state workers could simply refuse to deliver your mail, renew your drivers license, or let you into the airport because of a political reasons, it would no better than a dictatorship where the government itself did those things to suppress political enemies. You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business.
Could the poll workers refuse to accepts ballots for a candidate they have a "labor action" against?
Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of workers rights.
This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.
I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use.
> A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people
Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law."
Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
> courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok."
No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature.
Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice.
Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.
The government’s sovereignty does not come before the ability of the workers to unionize.
State workers are not discriminating against a person here. They’re discriminating against a huge company, one of the largest in the world.
And no comparing the actions of workers to a dictatorship is legitimately insane. A dictatorship has virtually no involvement of actual people and citizens. A workers union does.
You can not take away this right from workers without actually paving the path to a dictatorship or oligarchy.
"It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined"
Maybe your concept of the law is not universal? It seems to be accepted behavior by swedish law, so it is within the rule of law.
Corruption, Mafia, cartel, etc. control of legal processes seem to be accepted behavior (or were in the past) in some countries. Would you say that that's within the rule of law?
For centuries, Russian bureaucrats were expected – completely officially and under the law – to earn their living by extracting money from members of the local population directly, instead of through taxation going into a state budget. This was known as kormlenie. To populations elsewhere, such a system might meet their local definition of corruption.
Sorry this was a totally different thing, as an example to how Nordic labour movements may well be different to other parts of the world.
Security workers at Helsinki airport walked out because they are not happy with the current elected government in Finland, not due to actions of their employer. This is a political protest and it is allowed.
> You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business.
This is indeed the point of a strike, yes. Which is allowed (under certain conditions) by Swedish law, particularly when it comes to labor conflicts. If Tesla wants to conduct business in Sweden, it'll have to cooperate with Swedish laborers. Those have more power than in the USA, but Tesla can always go elsewhere if it really cannot stomach paying its workers equivalent wages as other companies in Sweden.
Not in scandinavia. It's how the labor market is organized and its working great. I don't remember how it is in Sweden, but the relationship between employees and employers, how they can negotiate, and what kind of means they can subject the other part to, is enshrined in law, and so strikes that looks like this one in Sweden can easily be lawful.
> It is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that workers can selectively fail to perform government services for someone they don't like, and not be disciplined. This is not a labor rights issue, it is an issue of the government's sovereignty and ability to fulfill its duties.
Whose law? Yours?
This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company.
EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough.
The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse.
I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.
> Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?
But this isn't comparable. Nobody has a right to register their car when they want. It's economic harm being caused in a precedented manner. Ignorance of the history of a country's customs and laws doesn't exempt you from them.
In America, national security is the precedented equivalent. If a postal worker suspects something dangerous is being transmitted, they're absolutely allowed to use individual discretion to delay or even suspend delivery. This is loosely codified, but not to the level of an individual driver. In Sweden, labour disputes are similarly elevated in a way that is precedented.
You questions are bizarre. Of course judges and police should be able to strike. Usually critical areas like law, health, will not strike completely but have some employees keep working on critical tasks.
There is no arbitrariness in this, its fantasy of yours. There are common agreements between workers associations and employers, often different by profession. If these are not upheld by the parties involved, several tools of labor struggle are legal to be used, like striking an sympathy strikes. There is a legal and contractual frame underpinning all of this, which can also be challenged as tesla is doing. All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.
I dont see the distinction that you are drawing, and I'm not talking about a general or partial strike. I am talking about a targeted strike.
>All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.
I didn't stay anything about it being arbitrary/personal. Do you really think that Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases from organizations or companies?
I dont think the current system in Sweden is relevant to the question of if tokai think Judges should be able to boycott cases.
The fact that the current system has existed for 75 years doesn't even mean anything about the postnord case (which hasnt been decided) or if the Swedish government is required to ensure equal accesses to government services or law.
We can make up hypotheticals to make anything look bad all day, doesn't make them likely to happen. A track record of 75 years with nothing like those hypotheticals says something.
There's no discrimination happening here as Tesla is not a protected group that is covered by this. The right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined in Swedens constitution. The government is very hands off when it comes to labour disputes. PostNord is a government owned private company, their employees are not working for the state.
Well we have precedent on this before it was a private operator, presumably it easier now that they're not even state employees. In the 90s we had a similar situation with Toys R Us and the SEKO union which Posten employees were part of joined the sympathy strike and stopped delivering mail to them.
Edit: Seems like Posten became a company the same year. So during that strike they may not have been state employees. Still a precedent though.
Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a danger in society. Dont know if that would apply to judges.
But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.
again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that.
The situation is pretty simple.
We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute.
The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike.
2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1.
My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met.
I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service
>Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?
This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions.
In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.
They’re 100 % government owned, but not by the Swedish government. That’s not so important though - what is important is that they’re operating commercially under the same regulation as numerous competitors that are not part-owned by the Swedish government[1]. Police, judges, and other actual government officials have much less freedom to strike.
[1]: Some owned by private investors, some owned by other governments. Welcome to the EU.
The law (including ECHR) protecting the private property in the mail that is being trespassed by the workers refusing to either deliver or give it back, and the law setting the rates and service standards for the post which was paid and not honored.
I think the workers at Tesla should unionize and get better treatment. I wouldn't want to work for one of Musk's companies. My concern is that if I lived in such a country, I'd be afraid that one day my city water would be disconnected or they'd refuse to renew my drivers license or passport, because I did something that those workers didn't like.
I'll admit to not researching the details of PostNord, but it is listed as a state-owned enterprise in Wikipedia and it fulfills Sweden's participation in the UPU. If it were purely private like FedEx, I wouldn't have the same argument--though in that case, my argument would be that the DMV needs to use another post if they know one is refusing to deliver.
The Swedish DMV has been ordered by the court to ensure Tesla can pick up their plates within seven days at the latest, so your argument at the end is sort of what’s happening here :)
I think the courts agree with you: There are two cases, one against the government agency registering vehicles and this one against Postnord, a company co-owned by the governments of Denmark and Sweden. Both cases are still pending, but:
In the former case, the court order an injunction(?) forcing the government agency to release plates through other means than post. In the latter, the company Postnord was not immediately forced to act.
IANAL, but the subtle difference between “the government” and “government owned company” seems relevant.
Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action.
Maybe if the postal services had not been privatised (and employees loosing a bunch of privileges) I'd be sympathetic. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.
> On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.
Infrastructure and communication with governments needs to be regulated and open to everyone, that is a basic freedom that has to be respected for a country to be free. If you have a road toll and refuse to service certain cars and thus efficiently putting them in a prison then I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation.
> I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation
You and I aren't Swedish. (EDIT: Nvm!) This is how the Swedish labor model has worked for decades. By all practical measures, it works.
This was a stupid fight to pick because it's unwinnable. If Tesla prevails in the courts, they will get hit harder by the political system. Driving a Tesla will become a political statement. I'm not sure if there is a good way to back down other than franchising Tesla's Swedish business to a local partner.
If Postnord is unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligations, then their contract should be dropped, and another company should be used instead. Right?
Or is there only one mail delivery service? Or is something else the problem?
Swedish Law was that plates could only be delivered by government owned Postnord.
The courts just ruled that Tesla is temporarily exempted from this law until the case is settled.
Postnord also has many plates in their possession, and tesla can not legally sell or ship the cars they are registered to. The court has just ruled that Postnord can hold on to these plates until the case is settled
> Firstly postnord is a (largely government owned) private company, so employees are not state employees. For state employees, employees with sovereignty duties (e.g. police...) typically there are restrictions around strike action.
So the government owns the company, but the employees are not government employees?
Everything I said still stands.
---
EDIT: Basic common sense says you can either be considered (1) a government organization with statutory exclusivity and legal responsibility (2) a private organization without statutory exclusivity or legal responsibility.
Sweden is letting Postnord have its cake and eat it too.
The person you're talking to is mistaken, the use of Postnord is not defined in law, it's contractual. The Swedish government has a centrally negotiated contract with Postnord to do all of their deliveries, and Transportstyrelsen did not believe they were authorized to break that contract – even with the strike causing Postnord to not live up to their end. It makes sense to me that the court system was needed to decide that the contract in practice is void in situations like this.
As others have mentioned PostNord is owned jointly with the Danish government so it's not quite a government services, well the postal delivery is, but the mechanism that achieves it, PostNord, is not.
I think you are also missing something else here. The government could break contracts with PostNord and have some other company take on the responsibility for the service, but in the Swedish political climate this would be a terrible idea and the government would haemorrhage voters if it did this. Not to mention the fact that whatever company it got to take over the services would have unionised workers, who would, undoubtedly, continue the action against Tesla.
This has gotten out of hand, and frankly everyone is a bad guy. Tesla is being innapropriately inflexible here; union labor is the rule in Europe and they're just going to have to deal with that.
On the other side, we have a bunch of other unions and a government-mandated monopoly (!!) being deployed against them over a single center with 130 jobs. This level of economic disruption is way out of range of what is reasonable for a union action. It's supposed to be for the benefit of the workers in question, and to be honest I don't think anyone's even covering them?
The whole thing is a shitshow, and it's frankly embarrassing for Sweden from my perspective. I mean, if you were a C-suite executive looking to open a new office, and had to pick between Stockholm and Oslo or Helsinki, seems like an easy choice, no?
> It's supposed to be for the benefit of the workers in question, and to be honest I don't think anyone's even covering them?
The Nordics are a high-value EV market. It could be worth demonstrating resolve so the next group that hires these workers plays by the rules the local economy has evolved.
The Swedish unions, for their part, see this fight as exisetnial to their economic model [1]. With which I agree. If they bend for Tesla, they'll have to for Amazon.
> If they bend for Tesla, they'll have to for Amazon.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and declare without evidence but with great certainty that Amazon employs VASTLY more than 130 workers in Sweden. This doesn't pass the smell test, sorry.
>way out of range of what is reasonable for a union action.
It's not and it shouldn't be. If Tesla wasn't being "inflexible" then this wouldn't be happening. Their actions are unjustifiable and have continued for years. The only bad actor here is Tesla. Tesla just has to stop their abhorrent behaviour.
Are these 130 jobs low wage positions, though? That's exactly the coverage I'd want to see about this issue, and... it's not there. Look, if the 130 workers were striking in order to unionize, that would be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the impetus at all.
There are zero facts in that article sourced from or even about the 130 workers in question. All the quotes are from IF Metall, the broader union who doesn't represent the workers yet but wants to.
Again, if the workers want to unionize Tesla should let them, period. That's the way it works in Europe and they need to play on the same field.
But they don't seem to be asking! Instead IF Metall, other unions, and at this point the Swedish legal system are all going to the mattresses to compel a unionization agreement for workers who aren't even part of the discussion. And that's batshit.
Someone mentioned it'd be interesting to do a study of the Dunning-Kruger effect on the Bay Area/HN yesterday and after seeing the authority people talk about Swedish unions with almost every point being incorrect, I agree. Why do people feel the need to comment on things that they just don't know? I like Lesswrong and similar forums where people preface comments with how sure they are of what they're saying - HN could do with similar.
131 comments
[ 12.6 ms ] story [ 297 ms ] thread* Yesterday's ruling was about ordering to allow the plate manufacturer to hand out plates before they go to Postnord
* This ruling is about the plates that are already with Postcard.
So it seems it's two different things. Also, putting feelings about Tesla and Musk aside, how common is the concept of not doing an overall strike but not doing work for one customer only. I fully support the right of the Tesla mechanics to strike but what about the right of postal workers not striking but not delivering Tesla packages (there was also previous example of dock workers not unloading cars). Is this a right in other countries, too. Can it be exercised for other postal customers for other purposes than their workers striking, e.g. for support of certain political beliefs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action
No - this is limited to labour market conflicts. The Swedish state (courts included) tries not to get involved in such conflicts. Both because of history (there were some unfortunate situations early last century) and because most voters are quite happy with how things work out.
> … When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, but insofar as it is meant to imply that the different legal environment is what accounts for the labor radicalism, this obviously has things backwards. The laws aren’t driving the labor radicalism, but rather the labor radicalism is driving the laws.
> […]
> If we [in the US] are ever going to get to Nordic levels of equality, it is really hard to imagine doing it without building a similarly powerful labor movement. You can certainly get some of the way there, such as by copying certain welfare programs, but without the unions, you’ll always be missing a key piece. And while legal and policy reforms can help build the labor movement some, the power of organized labor is not ultimately rooted in the state, but rather in the ability to halt production and wreak havoc even when the state is aligned against it.
"Solidarity action – supporting other workers in their primary action – is by now, in many countries, considered legal under certain conditions, exceptions being Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK. In Germany and Italy the situation with regard to the rules governing solidarity action is quite complex. In Spain its legality has to be established on a case-by-case basis"
The ruling here essentially said there is not enough urgency to make a decision without hearing postnord, whom now have 3 days to respond.
This seems reasonable to me. If postnord doesnt want to deliver to tesla, thats fine, but then they should reject packages addressed to tesla, not hold take them and hold them hostage.
I think postnord should have to return the plates in their possession to the factory, or allow Tesla to come get them wherever they are.
If you have my property, refuse to hand it over, it is common for courts to allow repossession.
IF an autoshop has your car, they can boycott working on it, but they cant stop you from getting it. If they try, you can get a court order, go with the police, and pick it up.
The US should ban the import of Volvos and other Swedish products until this is resolved.
Swedish labor unions are in all likelihood going to force Tesla to comply with normal Swedish labor practices, so Tesla can either go along with that or exit the market. It would be best for them to negotiate a settlement.
https://www.state.gov/trade-agreements/
We're seeing a country, and increasingly the Nordic region, express outrage against Musk. It's manifesting in a Scandinavian way. But were the same conditions ripe in America, we'd see registration delays and special fees, safety investigations and public hearings.
I don't think we would. America is a big country, and certainly governments can be obstructionist, particularly state and local governments. But that tends to be through permitting and courts, which makes it more predictable and easier to appeal. USPS doing something like this is inconceivable - reliable delivery of government services is very high priority.
Talk to a developer some time. Approvals are opaque and personal and rarely subject to judicial review. I'd prefer that to change. But to argue it's unprecedented or an affront to the rule of law would be ridiculous.
> USPS doing something like this is inconceivable
PostNord is technically a private company. (It's state owned.) This is more like the MPAA refusing to rate a movie, or giving a film a rating the producer doesn't like.
PostNord isn't private, it's state-owned by Sweden and Denmark.
Sweden's population is like New York City and LA. This is, practically speaking, a local dispute.
> you implied that the U.S. also selectively blocks certain companies but through other means than labor
MPAA ratings. Corporate credit ratings. Consumer credit ratings. Fannie Mae.
Postnord is a private company [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostNord
"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.
Sure. But you can't sue Fannie Mae for denying you guarantees under the equal protection clause.
Guarantee mortgages with the implicit backing of the U.S.? Yes.
There are loads of other examples of NGOs being granted limited monopolies. The NFL is a famous example. The MPAA and NCMEC others.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/domstol-teslas-registreri...
Yes! Sweden has laws around labour disputes. Again, these are deeply precedented. Even the experience of American companies being caught pants down in their respect is precedented.
But these things haven't been pitted against each other in court. The state has to provide these services according to law, but workers can strike according to law. So what happens when these two things oppose each other? That is what these lawsuits are supposed to figure out.
So it makes perfect sense to sue in this case. Clearing these things up is a really good thing.
Unless the law specifically enshrines the privilege of one named private party above others?
Any of that make sense?
> "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.
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.
Will be interesting to see where this ends.
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.
I can't stand Tesla/Musk but I would not be happy if this happened in my country. If state workers could simply refuse to deliver your mail, renew your drivers license, or let you into the airport because of a political reasons, it would no better than a dictatorship where the government itself did those things to suppress political enemies. You would have no ability to carry on your normal life or business.
Could the poll workers refuse to accepts ballots for a candidate they have a "labor action" against?
This isn't a rule of law issue. If the courts issued a final ruling and the postal workers persisted, it would be.
This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.
I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use.
> A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people
This is counterproductive hyperbole.
Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law."
Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature.
Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"?
I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__.
Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.
What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?
I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice.
Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.
State workers are not discriminating against a person here. They’re discriminating against a huge company, one of the largest in the world.
And no comparing the actions of workers to a dictatorship is legitimately insane. A dictatorship has virtually no involvement of actual people and citizens. A workers union does.
You can not take away this right from workers without actually paving the path to a dictatorship or oligarchy.
Maybe your concept of the law is not universal? It seems to be accepted behavior by swedish law, so it is within the rule of law.
Well actually, on the subject of airports and nordic labour movements:
https://yle.fi/a/74-20053729
"The walkout is a political protest, permitted under collective agreements, and is not directed at employers or the current contract in the sector."
I guess they have to pay for it though (in docked salary). But yes it is strange to me too.
Security workers at Helsinki airport walked out because they are not happy with the current elected government in Finland, not due to actions of their employer. This is a political protest and it is allowed.
This is indeed the point of a strike, yes. Which is allowed (under certain conditions) by Swedish law, particularly when it comes to labor conflicts. If Tesla wants to conduct business in Sweden, it'll have to cooperate with Swedish laborers. Those have more power than in the USA, but Tesla can always go elsewhere if it really cannot stomach paying its workers equivalent wages as other companies in Sweden.
Whose law? Yours?
This is compatible with the rule of law in Nordic countries, including my own. PostNord is a private company.
EDIT: PostNord is public, not private and is jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
This is what labor fighting back looks like. United. That US labor rights were disemboweled by the Taft-Harley Act means everything to the Nordic countries who are using their rights as labor to organize and say now's enough.
The US will always remain a lopsided democracy so long as workers cannot stop the machine en masse.
I talk a lot of shit on the European model but this is something I am happy to join my fellow sisters and brothers in labor protesting. Musk's attacks on unions stops here.
Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like?
Should police be able to boycott calls from people they oppose?
You're right, my mistake. It's jointly owned by Sweden and Denmark.
But this isn't comparable. Nobody has a right to register their car when they want. It's economic harm being caused in a precedented manner. Ignorance of the history of a country's customs and laws doesn't exempt you from them.
In America, national security is the precedented equivalent. If a postal worker suspects something dangerous is being transmitted, they're absolutely allowed to use individual discretion to delay or even suspend delivery. This is loosely codified, but not to the level of an individual driver. In Sweden, labour disputes are similarly elevated in a way that is precedented.
Under Swedish law the Transport Agency is required to provide license plates.
If you are the expert on Swedish custom and law, please explain the difference and where the line is drawn in Sweden.
Otherwise, it seems you are just making bold claims of personal opinion, and then calling everyone else ignorant.
There is no arbitrariness in this, its fantasy of yours. There are common agreements between workers associations and employers, often different by profession. If these are not upheld by the parties involved, several tools of labor struggle are legal to be used, like striking an sympathy strikes. There is a legal and contractual frame underpinning all of this, which can also be challenged as tesla is doing. All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.
>All this what-about-personal-boycotts is pie in the sky fearmongering to be honest.
I didn't stay anything about it being arbitrary/personal. Do you really think that Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases from organizations or companies?
You don't get to decide what I think is relevant.
I dont think the current system in Sweden is relevant to the question of if tokai think Judges should be able to boycott cases.
The fact that the current system has existed for 75 years doesn't even mean anything about the postnord case (which hasnt been decided) or if the Swedish government is required to ensure equal accesses to government services or law.
There's no discrimination happening here as Tesla is not a protected group that is covered by this. The right to strike is a fundamental right enshrined in Swedens constitution. The government is very hands off when it comes to labour disputes. PostNord is a government owned private company, their employees are not working for the state.
The postal service hasn't had a private operator for long, so this situation wasn't possible until recently.
Edit: Seems like Posten became a company the same year. So during that strike they may not have been state employees. Still a precedent though.
What do you think tokai's position on judge strikes is?
Do you have a position on Judge strikes?
OR are you trying to talk about something else?
But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.
The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute.
The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1.
My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met.
I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service
This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions.
In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.
[1]: Some owned by private investors, some owned by other governments. Welcome to the EU.
I think the workers at Tesla should unionize and get better treatment. I wouldn't want to work for one of Musk's companies. My concern is that if I lived in such a country, I'd be afraid that one day my city water would be disconnected or they'd refuse to renew my drivers license or passport, because I did something that those workers didn't like.
I'll admit to not researching the details of PostNord, but it is listed as a state-owned enterprise in Wikipedia and it fulfills Sweden's participation in the UPU. If it were purely private like FedEx, I wouldn't have the same argument--though in that case, my argument would be that the DMV needs to use another post if they know one is refusing to deliver.
Is the UPU relevant to domestic deliveries?
In the former case, the court order an injunction(?) forcing the government agency to release plates through other means than post. In the latter, the company Postnord was not immediately forced to act.
IANAL, but the subtle difference between “the government” and “government owned company” seems relevant.
Maybe if the postal services had not been privatised (and employees loosing a bunch of privileges) I'd be sympathetic. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
On a more general note I find it fascinating how many here are arguing against regulations and individual freedoms when it comes to restricting corporations, but immediately shout for regulation when workers want to use their rights.
Infrastructure and communication with governments needs to be regulated and open to everyone, that is a basic freedom that has to be respected for a country to be free. If you have a road toll and refuse to service certain cars and thus efficiently putting them in a prison then I don't think that is a fair use of worker rights even if the road toll workers are in a private corporation.
You and I aren't Swedish. (EDIT: Nvm!) This is how the Swedish labor model has worked for decades. By all practical measures, it works.
This was a stupid fight to pick because it's unwinnable. If Tesla prevails in the courts, they will get hit harder by the political system. Driving a Tesla will become a political statement. I'm not sure if there is a good way to back down other than franchising Tesla's Swedish business to a local partner.
I am Swedish.
Or is there only one mail delivery service? Or is something else the problem?
What am I missing?
The courts just ruled that Tesla is temporarily exempted from this law until the case is settled.
Postnord also has many plates in their possession, and tesla can not legally sell or ship the cars they are registered to. The court has just ruled that Postnord can hold on to these plates until the case is settled
Wow that's... Wow.
I take for granted that private parties are equal under the law.
So the government owns the company, but the employees are not government employees?
Everything I said still stands.
---
EDIT: Basic common sense says you can either be considered (1) a government organization with statutory exclusivity and legal responsibility (2) a private organization without statutory exclusivity or legal responsibility.
Sweden is letting Postnord have its cake and eat it too.
I think you are also missing something else here. The government could break contracts with PostNord and have some other company take on the responsibility for the service, but in the Swedish political climate this would be a terrible idea and the government would haemorrhage voters if it did this. Not to mention the fact that whatever company it got to take over the services would have unionised workers, who would, undoubtedly, continue the action against Tesla.
He should just play by the same rules as every other employer in Sweden for the past 80 years, but he can't help seeking the attention.
They don't do things conventionally in many localities, e.g. dealership stuff.
On the other side, we have a bunch of other unions and a government-mandated monopoly (!!) being deployed against them over a single center with 130 jobs. This level of economic disruption is way out of range of what is reasonable for a union action. It's supposed to be for the benefit of the workers in question, and to be honest I don't think anyone's even covering them?
The whole thing is a shitshow, and it's frankly embarrassing for Sweden from my perspective. I mean, if you were a C-suite executive looking to open a new office, and had to pick between Stockholm and Oslo or Helsinki, seems like an easy choice, no?
The Nordics are a high-value EV market. It could be worth demonstrating resolve so the next group that hires these workers plays by the rules the local economy has evolved.
The Swedish unions, for their part, see this fight as exisetnial to their economic model [1]. With which I agree. If they bend for Tesla, they'll have to for Amazon.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/99caf360-7c21-4251-9167-f08a8fa6c...
I'm just going to go out on a limb and declare without evidence but with great certainty that Amazon employs VASTLY more than 130 workers in Sweden. This doesn't pass the smell test, sorry.
It's not and it shouldn't be. If Tesla wasn't being "inflexible" then this wouldn't be happening. Their actions are unjustifiable and have continued for years. The only bad actor here is Tesla. Tesla just has to stop their abhorrent behaviour.
There are zero facts in that article sourced from or even about the 130 workers in question. All the quotes are from IF Metall, the broader union who doesn't represent the workers yet but wants to.
Again, if the workers want to unionize Tesla should let them, period. That's the way it works in Europe and they need to play on the same field.
But they don't seem to be asking! Instead IF Metall, other unions, and at this point the Swedish legal system are all going to the mattresses to compel a unionization agreement for workers who aren't even part of the discussion. And that's batshit.