Good for Sweden! But OTOH, it's sad to see the international race to the bottom: Tesla will of course not build a factory in Sweden, where the union representation rate is 88%, but in Germany, which theoretically has a very similar collective bargaining model, but where the rate has fallen to 54% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_agreement_coverage#...).
Well it makes sense to NOT build a factory where the workers are prohibited from painting your cars. If the unions see this as a good thing then it is a win for everyone. Tesla build factories where people will work on their cars and Swedish unions don't have to turn down work that is available in their country.
Tesla may go to Germany, but Scandinavia and the Nordic countries are still very good places to create factories. Highly skilled labor is easy to come by, and the top earners make less than their colleagues in the US. These are only a few of the many reasons why it’s very easy to get (filthy) rich in the Nordic countries: https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU?si=6o3vs2Wu6eNM_h1h&t=738
The Nordic countries must adapt away from this pre-globalization mentality or have all of their assets slowly withered away by more flexible economies. The same exact problem applies to Finland where I'm from.
Euro-area economies are stagnant or shrinking whilst US economy is churning onwards like a madman. They will buy all of our assets away over time unless we start seriously competing.
Sad, but this is the only choice now that we've chosen to participate in the global economy.
Or we could choose to prioritise humans over the meaningless growth figures the US values. When the median income has barely changed or even shrunk overall growth number is irrelevant. In fact it's worse than irrelevant — it means your society is more uneven, which has many second order costs.
What we actually need to do is develop a political and economic language which values things people actually care about.
Unless you're already a millionaire, you should be happy to live in Finland and not in a more "flexible" economy like the US. No public healthcare, guns everywhere, no workers rights... No thanks. I'll take the much lower GDP per capita of my country for a better chance of living a decent life here.
As for a better hypothesis as to why the US economy is so powerful: "The Prize" or "Guns, Germs and Steel".
I recently left Sveriges Ingenjörer. I don’t agree that strong unions is only a good thing. I hope Tesla will prevail, or leave Sweden so the union bigwigs (and Swedes in general) get something to think about.
I was a member of a huge union for a long time and they don't do anything if you're fired or laid off. Because you aren't in the union anymore. But they loved collecting dues. I wonder where all that money goes? There must be a way to find out.
Indeed you can. All Swedish unions will publish annual reports that include information on what they've done and what the money has been spent on. Here are all the reports for the largest union in Sweden for example: https://www.unionen.se/filer/broschyr/unionens-verksamhetsbe...
> they don't do anything if you're fired or laid off. Because you aren't in the union anymore
That's... not how it works, in decent unions at least. In fact, in many sectors in Europe the unions will come out swinging only when layoffs are on the cards. And union membership is not necessarily tied to a job, often people remain union members as long as they stay in the same sector (some unions even allow non-sector members).
So it sounds like the action isn't about particulars, at least not at this point.
They are describing the dispute as being about general principles afaict. That Tesla should accept the "swedish labour model" in general. They emphasize that it's an non-disruptive model and good for business.
This stuff is all context(that I don't have. Otherwise it's just a generic "unions or not" debate unrelated to Tesla, Sweden or 2023.
That said... US companies seem at aeas with these sorts of issues in Europe. In china, companies either stay out or bite the bullet and play by Chinese rules.
In Europe, especially around labour issues... American companies seem to always "rebel." It's as if local labour laws just aren't taken into prior account... and companies are caught surprised by the inevitable.
This doesn't really happen outside of Europe, nor for non-labour issues like environmental regs.
It's interesting, I've started seeing job ads in Sweden where you are expected to setup your own company to work for a US-based company with US-style PTO. The salary looks bigger than what is typically offered by Swedish companies but that is because not only do you have to work more, the company you setup will also have to pay the quite steep payroll tax (at ~31%) that most employees are not familiar with (as it's paid by the employer on top of your salary before personal taxes).
The law in Sweden dictates that a company must give its employees at least 5 weeks of vacation of which at least four weeks consecutively some time during June, July and August.
This is really insidious as it looks like you'll be earning a lot (but you won't) and it's hard to sue yourself for only giving yourself two weeks of vacation.
Some companies absolutely try it for environmental regs, too. I think what you're possibly seeing here is that where a multinational tries labour abuses, the response is typically very messy and public, whereas only the very most extreme _regulatory_ offences will be particularly publicly visible (typically where the company tries to defy the regulator after being caught red-handed). More commonly they'll be told what they need to fix and possibly fined.
There is nothing illegal about operating without a collective labour agreement in Sweden. For example, I’m born in Sweden and have worked here for 20+ years and I don’t think I’ve ever had an employer with a collective labor agreement. Among tech startups and smaller companies it’s quite rare, and when I’ve worked for larger companies I’ve incorporated and contracted, largely to get away from the negative effects of unions and job security: absurdly low pay.
Oh now I understand what this is. Swedish have a standard of how fast you work MTM and others have as well. I bet Tesla doesn't want to follow that and want people to work much faster.
So, some average speed of worked might be MTM 90-100, but in Sweden is like 70, because studies show they get injured much less. And if you see videos of workers, they appear to work like in slow motion.
This might be one of things they have dispute about.
This is not very informative at all, the first sentence is a vague statement about “decent and safe working conditions” without any detail or elaboration and the rest is basically an ad for the union complete with a “join today” call to action.
It directly answers the question why this trade union is taking industrial action against tesla. Because tesla refuses to negotiate a collective agreement with its employees. Seems quite informative.
> a vague statement about “decent and safe working conditions”
There's nothing vague about it given the context. They mean standard Swedish working conditions, like the deals they have (and everyone else has (literally 90% of workers)) everywhere else. The precise conditions of collective agreements vary somewhat but overall are pretty uniform per sector so everyone here knows what they're talking about. Unfortunately I can't find you an English article for what they're talking about but you can try your hand at translating this one [1] for some introductory information.
You are reading one side of the dispute's statement.
That said, yes, it doesn't sound like their on specific demands, at least currently. They want Tesla to "accept the swedish labour model."
"Decent and safe working conditions" is the union's general raisin d'etre. Their role, general goal, etc. It would be like Tesla saying they want to "profitably manufacture vehicles." Just a general description of what they do... and it's fine if they were to state it while describing their position.
It seems reading comprehension isn't your forte. Here's the very first paragraph of the article you're accusing of not being very informative.
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions. Over a long period of time, we have attempted to discuss with Tesla the signing of a collective agreement, yet without success. Now we see no solution other than to take industrial action.
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions.
I’m Swedish and have been following this closely. I’ve yet to see anything that indicates either a) that Tesla employees do not have decent and safe working conditions or b) that Tesla employees themselves want a collective agreement with IF Metall. In fact Tesla has stated that their agreement is better for employees than the one the union IF Metall is trying to impose. There are also statements from Tesla mechanics in the press to the same effect, e.g. because they currently get stock options.
To me it’s quite obvious that this is about defending “the Swedish model”, a semi-socialist labour market system where compensation is decided primarily in negotiations between cartels of unions and cartels of large employers. (Individuals can negotiate their own salaries, but in practice only within this reference frame of collective bargaining.)
> There are also statements from Tesla mechanics in the press to the same effect
Scabs :) more seriously: let's say I have 100 employees; I underpay 90 of them, and overpay 10. When the union comes knocking, I roll out the 10 overpaid ones to whinge in the press. I'm not saying this is Tesla's case, just that all declarations (particularly from employers) have to be taken with a big pinch of salt.
That's not to say that unions are always right, some of them are undoubtedly power-hungry organizations more interested in survival than in their core mission (like all institutions). But typically, cries from employers about their agreements being "better" are just because they don't want to be tied to the guarantees that union agreements contain; nobody stops them from paying above what stated in the agreement anyway.
The word safe here is doing a lot of heavy lifting imo. Not necessarily safe as in physical safety but also contractual safety.
An example is pension where companies not under collective agreement tend to not specify pension in contract rather just a blurb about "pension is to be compensated based on the currently applicable company policy". Basically allowing them to do whatever bait and switch they want later. Even if the benefits are good now there's no guarantee that they will stay that way. That's what a collective agreement is supposed to protect, that you can't go below that standard.
> I’ve yet to see anything that indicates [...] that Tesla employees themselves want a collective agreement with IF Metall.
I, uh, wonder how you arrive to this conclusion considering all the Tesla employees striking for this exact purpose? Admittedly it's not the employees themselves manning the picket lines, but that's for safety reason as bosses at Tesla has threatened to fire people who participate in the strike.
Same in Germany, where the left party and labor union drive a campaign against Tesla Grünheide (just southeast of Berlin) with very nebulous claims such as safe working conditions or wages. Those claims are never backed by hard numbers, just anecdotes about work accidents or in case of wages pure accusations.
The German IG Metall is quite obviously teaming up with the Swedish IF Metall (does anyone else recognize the similarity in their names) to keep their power. It will be interesting to see how this will work out.
Yes you are absolutely right. In this case it is about Tesla, owned by the richest man in the world. In other cases it has been about a salad bar run by an ordinary small-business owner. The "Swedish model" is that they should all sign collective agreements or else the unions will be very unhappy and you will have a hard time to continue running your business.
It's what you get if you try to break a strike by hiring scabs. The unions will try to break you right back. Elon is going to have to hire a lot of scabs if he still wants to do business in Sweden.
And if I'm not mistaken, business for Tesla has been pretty big in Scandinavia. I've heard they've got a significant chunk of the market in Norway. No idea if Sweden is the same, but I think Elon's confrontational approach could really hurt Tesla.
I expect this to continue to expand indefinitely. Tesla's going to end up being driven out of Sweden. Musk would rather (locally) bankrupt it than cave.
Specifically, Swedish unions are fighting back, which I have come to understand have a Musketeeresque 'all for one, and one for all' model. (I.e. failure to successfully bargain with one union leads to all unions striking against you)
IMHO, good for them!
The rest of the world gripes about the current ascendancy of corporate combinations over labor... and the Swedish response is to observe that (all labor) is still bigger than (large corporation).
Fair bargains come from negotiations between entities with similar levels of power.
Being from the US, this kind of union solidarity is really beautiful to watch. We've had our own string of recent wins, which has also been pretty fantastic, but seeing it all go down as if this is standard practice hits different. Like the difference between watching your buddy make a wild-ass, hail-mary basketball shot, and watching Micheal Jordan tomahawk dunk. They're both cool to see and amazing in different ways, but there's something mesmerizing about a well-oiled machine performing optimally with (seemingly) no effort.
The power balance between an employer and employees, especially those in lower-paying jobs, is crucial.
Often, workers in these jobs earn less than they should because that's the going rate in the market. They accept lower wages to make ends meet, since some income is better than none. If they ask for more pay, they risk being replaced. Here's how it happens:
If worker A requests a raise, they are readily replaced by worker B willing to work for the original salary. This pattern repeats with worker C and the cycle continues, mostly benefiting the employer.
The only way to break this cycle and potentially secure higher wages, is if workers A, B, and C work together to collectively negotiate with their employers. If one of them is willing to work for less, the leverage is lost.
It's nowhere near perfect, and unfortunately misused as well. But concentrating power solely with the employer can be far worse, leaving behind a society fuelled by greed, at the expense of a broken social fabric with crippling destitution.
This seems strange that it would be legal for workers in other industries to specifically target a brand.
How can they justify painting some products, but not others as a "work action"? A work action would involve something to do with their terms or state of employment, or actually going on strike and refusing to paint any products.
This looks like a targeted coercion effort against a single brand.
Don't understand how any of this can be possible under the European economic framework. How can their free trade agreement allow this sort of race to the bottom and differential in labor rules and trade union practice? The rules must be written in a heavily anti-union manner.
Power is good until it is actually used. At that point, it loses its power. From that point of view, this may be the beginning of the end for these Swedish unions.
Much the opposite, just this week Klarna had to sign a collective bargaining agreement after unions threatened to strike, quite a first for a big tech company here.
The labour market in Sweden cannot exist without unions, the government does not meddle much in the market, it does not set even a minimum wage, it's all part of negotiations between employers and employees (represented by unions).
Unions are essential for the self-regulation of the labour market between its participants over here.
On the contrary, I think it works as a fantastic recruitment drive for these Swedish unions, the only people that are against are the ones that have a better deal already. But they seem to forget that if those unions wouldn't set a baseline they too would be in a race to the bottom.
> For Målarna, it is a matter of course to stand side by side with our sisters and brothers in IF Metall, and we also see the danger in such a large and established employer challenging the Swedish collective agreement model, which is why we are placing these unprecedented massive notices in the area of agreements.
I'll always support unions, they are the only thing we have against corpos and their infinite abuse.
Readit News
Unions are strong here which in general is a good thing!
You can't also fire people just for willing to join or create a union!
This is not the U S of A. Were you can get fired for stuff which you have the right to do.
I hope the unions will win soon!
I my self joined the https://www.sverigesingenjorer.se/in-english/
The Tesla factory in germany has also big problems now...
Google the german meet industry were people who prepare meat are sleeping in tents in the forest...
Euro-area economies are stagnant or shrinking whilst US economy is churning onwards like a madman. They will buy all of our assets away over time unless we start seriously competing.
Sad, but this is the only choice now that we've chosen to participate in the global economy.
What we actually need to do is develop a political and economic language which values things people actually care about.
Ask the average US citizen if it feels that way.
Flexibility in the economy only creates flexibility for those at the _very_ top. It creates potential instability for literally everybody else.
As for a better hypothesis as to why the US economy is so powerful: "The Prize" or "Guns, Germs and Steel".
There needs to be a balance between what the employers want and what employees want. Or else...
Unions are a way to reach balance.
Deleted Comment
That's... not how it works, in decent unions at least. In fact, in many sectors in Europe the unions will come out swinging only when layoffs are on the cards. And union membership is not necessarily tied to a job, often people remain union members as long as they stay in the same sector (some unions even allow non-sector members).
But if you get fired the union usually checks for you if you were fired in a correct way.
If you pay into a A-Kasa and a union you get more unemployed benefits.
So not sure what you mean that they don't do anything...
They are describing the dispute as being about general principles afaict. That Tesla should accept the "swedish labour model" in general. They emphasize that it's an non-disruptive model and good for business.
This stuff is all context(that I don't have. Otherwise it's just a generic "unions or not" debate unrelated to Tesla, Sweden or 2023.
That said... US companies seem at aeas with these sorts of issues in Europe. In china, companies either stay out or bite the bullet and play by Chinese rules.
In Europe, especially around labour issues... American companies seem to always "rebel." It's as if local labour laws just aren't taken into prior account... and companies are caught surprised by the inevitable.
This doesn't really happen outside of Europe, nor for non-labour issues like environmental regs.
What is this? How/why?
The law in Sweden dictates that a company must give its employees at least 5 weeks of vacation of which at least four weeks consecutively some time during June, July and August.
This is really insidious as it looks like you'll be earning a lot (but you won't) and it's hard to sue yourself for only giving yourself two weeks of vacation.
So, some average speed of worked might be MTM 90-100, but in Sweden is like 70, because studies show they get injured much less. And if you see videos of workers, they appear to work like in slow motion.
This might be one of things they have dispute about.
There's nothing vague about it given the context. They mean standard Swedish working conditions, like the deals they have (and everyone else has (literally 90% of workers)) everywhere else. The precise conditions of collective agreements vary somewhat but overall are pretty uniform per sector so everyone here knows what they're talking about. Unfortunately I can't find you an English article for what they're talking about but you can try your hand at translating this one [1] for some introductory information.
1. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbetsmilj%C3%B6
That said, yes, it doesn't sound like their on specific demands, at least currently. They want Tesla to "accept the swedish labour model."
"Decent and safe working conditions" is the union's general raisin d'etre. Their role, general goal, etc. It would be like Tesla saying they want to "profitably manufacture vehicles." Just a general description of what they do... and it's fine if they were to state it while describing their position.
Deleted Comment
It seems reading comprehension isn't your forte. Here's the very first paragraph of the article you're accusing of not being very informative.
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions. Over a long period of time, we have attempted to discuss with Tesla the signing of a collective agreement, yet without success. Now we see no solution other than to take industrial action.
What exactly do you struggle to understand?
> The main reason for IF Metall to take industrial action at Tesla is to ensure that our members have decent and safe working conditions.
I’m Swedish and have been following this closely. I’ve yet to see anything that indicates either a) that Tesla employees do not have decent and safe working conditions or b) that Tesla employees themselves want a collective agreement with IF Metall. In fact Tesla has stated that their agreement is better for employees than the one the union IF Metall is trying to impose. There are also statements from Tesla mechanics in the press to the same effect, e.g. because they currently get stock options.
To me it’s quite obvious that this is about defending “the Swedish model”, a semi-socialist labour market system where compensation is decided primarily in negotiations between cartels of unions and cartels of large employers. (Individuals can negotiate their own salaries, but in practice only within this reference frame of collective bargaining.)
Scabs :) more seriously: let's say I have 100 employees; I underpay 90 of them, and overpay 10. When the union comes knocking, I roll out the 10 overpaid ones to whinge in the press. I'm not saying this is Tesla's case, just that all declarations (particularly from employers) have to be taken with a big pinch of salt.
That's not to say that unions are always right, some of them are undoubtedly power-hungry organizations more interested in survival than in their core mission (like all institutions). But typically, cries from employers about their agreements being "better" are just because they don't want to be tied to the guarantees that union agreements contain; nobody stops them from paying above what stated in the agreement anyway.
An example is pension where companies not under collective agreement tend to not specify pension in contract rather just a blurb about "pension is to be compensated based on the currently applicable company policy". Basically allowing them to do whatever bait and switch they want later. Even if the benefits are good now there's no guarantee that they will stay that way. That's what a collective agreement is supposed to protect, that you can't go below that standard.
I, uh, wonder how you arrive to this conclusion considering all the Tesla employees striking for this exact purpose? Admittedly it's not the employees themselves manning the picket lines, but that's for safety reason as bosses at Tesla has threatened to fire people who participate in the strike.
The German IG Metall is quite obviously teaming up with the Swedish IF Metall (does anyone else recognize the similarity in their names) to keep their power. It will be interesting to see how this will work out.
Of course it is. And what's wrong with that?
Mr. Freeze Peach doesn't seem to complain about that when it is China calling the shots. If he wants to play in Sweden, he can play by local rules.
* Ports will refuse to load Tesla cars
* Post and package delivery denied
* No office/factory cleaning
* Electricians won’t do work on office/factory/superchargers
And if I'm not mistaken, business for Tesla has been pretty big in Scandinavia. I've heard they've got a significant chunk of the market in Norway. No idea if Sweden is the same, but I think Elon's confrontational approach could really hurt Tesla.
Dead Comment
... dentists will split your procedure into three sessions
... the pothole on your street. .. it will be enlarged!
I suspect he will rather outsource those parts of the company. That way he can claim to not have changed anything but things can just continue.
Don't negotiate with unions.
Deleted Comment
Thanks for the more informative link below!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/world/europe/sweden-tesla...
IMHO, good for them!
The rest of the world gripes about the current ascendancy of corporate combinations over labor... and the Swedish response is to observe that (all labor) is still bigger than (large corporation).
Fair bargains come from negotiations between entities with similar levels of power.
Often, workers in these jobs earn less than they should because that's the going rate in the market. They accept lower wages to make ends meet, since some income is better than none. If they ask for more pay, they risk being replaced. Here's how it happens:
If worker A requests a raise, they are readily replaced by worker B willing to work for the original salary. This pattern repeats with worker C and the cycle continues, mostly benefiting the employer.
The only way to break this cycle and potentially secure higher wages, is if workers A, B, and C work together to collectively negotiate with their employers. If one of them is willing to work for less, the leverage is lost.
It's nowhere near perfect, and unfortunately misused as well. But concentrating power solely with the employer can be far worse, leaving behind a society fuelled by greed, at the expense of a broken social fabric with crippling destitution.
Update: Edited for clarity
How can they justify painting some products, but not others as a "work action"? A work action would involve something to do with their terms or state of employment, or actually going on strike and refusing to paint any products.
This looks like a targeted coercion effort against a single brand.
That is how you become a member of the world top 10 countries for Quality of Life.
Power is good until it is actually used. At that point, it loses its power. From that point of view, this may be the beginning of the end for these Swedish unions.
The labour market in Sweden cannot exist without unions, the government does not meddle much in the market, it does not set even a minimum wage, it's all part of negotiations between employers and employees (represented by unions).
Unions are essential for the self-regulation of the labour market between its participants over here.
I'll always support unions, they are the only thing we have against corpos and their infinite abuse.