Swedish unions strike: Blocks mail and package deliveries for Tesla
seko.se
seko.se
Toys R Us tried the same in Sweden. They initially refused agreement and hired only non-union workers. But transport and logistics workers union and finance union started sympathy strike. Toys R Us didn't get deliveries and bank workers refused work related to company.
I'm very proud of being part of this scandinavian society when it shows this kind of solidarity with workers. Workers are after all the majority of society.
Makes for a much more agile, progressive and cooperative environment that benefits both businesses and workers.
Unions in Sweden don’t try to get paid the most possible by the employers – they want fair wages and healthy companies and together with employer organizations they try to make up rules that benefit both, as healthy companies and happy workers are beneficial for all parties
Before the downturn I consistently had at least 1% raise above inflation for several years.
Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.
In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.
I suppose they will always hide behind “competitive” edge. The more naked truth seems to be that between the stakeholders of the CEO+board of directors v.s. workers—avoiding the nebolous “company interest”—there is always inherently a zero sum game. Like one of the automative CEOs in the US who boasted about how she was paid according to her performance—her performance being, among other things, directly related to how low she could keep wages for the rank and file.
My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.
When looking at the vast amount of energy and resources dedicated by the wealthy and by corporations over the last hundred years to crush unions in the US, the government going so far as to murder strikers and violently oppose them on behalf of those interests, legislation like the Taft-Hartley act, etc etc. -- it seems clear to me that forces external and opposed to the unions are far more influential in the erosion of those unions than legitimate internal gripes by union members.
Systemic and institutional reasons are more important than individuals.Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible.
All across the US, if you are younger, you likely get less compensation than if you are older. Older union members vote for higher compensation for themselves and reduced compensation for young and future union members, since they cannot vote. For example, if you look up collective bargaining agreements, you will often see tier 1 benefits for employees hired before year x, tier 2 benefits for before year y, and tier 3 benefits for after year y, etc.
A similar dynamic plays out with taxpayer funded benefits and older voters vs younger voters.
The US has an “Additional Medicare Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for older people. But there is no “Additional Medicaid Tax”, to help pay for healthcare for poorer/younger people.
For example, the ILWU union allows its members to give their position to their children as an inheritance. It's literally a mafia ("family").
And of course, any random Joe can't just apply for a job with the ILWU. In rare cases where positions become available, they conduct a lottery.
The end result is that the ILWU-controlled ports are competing with each other for the coveted last place in the global Port Performance Index. Right now, it's held by the LA ports.
One example I especially like to use is how agricultural workers are somehow not deserving of the same minimum wage as others. Even in the progressive states. Surely, it could not have anything to do with the workers mostly being poorer immigrants from a certain region.
Except for, ostensibly, employee satisfaction and quality of life?
This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true.
Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours.
But executives/corporations don't see it this way - they see this all of this as a power game, and every union demand they agree to is a fight lost.
In cases where this is actually true, the company would be offering these things of its own volition -- as happens in many industries without unions. So then what would you need the union for?
You could obviously have poorly managed companies that get this wrong, but then they would be at a competitive disadvantage in the market.
Where this more often doesn't happen is in the places where it isn't true. There are some jobs where worker productivity isn't that salient -- or is only relevant to the extent that it allows the company to employ fewer people, which is the sort of thing a union would then try to prevent.
That's assuming the company/industry doesn't have competitors in other countries.
They are not malign as far as I’ve heard, no.
that is where the power in unionization comes from.
Literally, the entire purpose of unions is to give employees enough economic power to fight greedy CEOs, managers and boards
As it stands now, corporations are entirely too powerful that the only way to actually fight back is to create collective support structures
This is a perfect example of how corporate ownership of the political process has usurped the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people, in favor of taking care of corporate interests
A great example of how oligarchical power is literally built into our legal infrastructure
This is a curious diagnosis of a late 40s law. Consider why average Americans, including those in the lowest rung, vote against pro-union legislation (or don’t turn out for it), as well as the difference between Swedish and American unions.
Outside urban centres and select belts of the country, unions poll poorly. A candidate running on pro-union credentials will perform the same as, or underperform, one who is neutral on the issue. Ignoring the trust deficit American unions have with the public is partly why this situation isn’t changing.
> citizens don't get to vote on individual laws
Most American states have referenda. Even in deep blue states, like New York and California, it’s typically a struggle to get pro-union ballot measures through.
It’s not just some innate thing that Americans don’t like unions.
1947 was one of the first red scares, with for instance then SAG president Ronald Reagan signing explicitly anti-communist statements.
Unions are always assault from capital; they just never really recovered in the US from the red scares.
I would assume that your discontentment is a result of misalignment between what you think is the government's role and what those who make government, think the government's role should be. Which one of you has a more legitimate claim to the truth?
I can see an argument that the Commerce clause grants powers to regulate such claims, but unfortunately federal laws in pursuit of a Constitutional power are still subordinate to Constitutional rights (IMO). It would require a Constitutional amendment to so empower a federal law to override a Constitutional right (again, IMO, as I'm writing to your "legitimacy" question posed to the GP).
It’s not crazy. It’s a very effective way of balancing the power dynamics between corporations and workers. What’s crazy is not having these rights enshrined in law. Why should the government tell workers how they can or cannot strike?
This way of doing it gets you one thing that some Americans dream of: no federal mandated universal minimum wage. I mean think about it… a universal federal minimum wage is a ridiculous idea. It’s never going to be a good level for all industries.
But if you’re going to make minimum wage something that workers and corporations can just settle between themselves, you have to give the workers real power. Not make national laws that give corporations the right to make contracts that make their workers slaves to their employers.
Some American think this is socialism. I’d argue that it’s just good capitalism that ensures healthy (labour) market dynamics. Same as how you want regulations that discourage the formation of monopolies.
How do you deal with the fact that there are people willing to work for less?
So, at least here, your hypothesis does not seem to hold.
This is probably due to the unions educating those immigrant workers on what their rights are.
There are those that fit the professional association description, for instance the union of computer scientists which mandates a university degree in cs to become a member (this union does do collective bargaining with government and municipalities but not private enterprises), but then there are more broader unions for bigger sectors that do collective bargaining against the industrial collective (samtök atvinnulífsins).
So, I'm not sure what is with the downvotes for bbarn's comment. Its a point that isn't far off.
By having a collective bargaining agreement setting the minimum pay the company is allowed, leveling the playing field to remove exploitative measures like that.
That shouldn't happen, you need some morality in this amoral system so it can be less exploitative, one way to set some moral guidance is to have a minimum threshold of what people should be paid for a job given that others are already offered that for a similar skillset. Willing to work for less in exchange of other benefits (like moving to a different society) only creates cascading issues for the others who aren't in that desperate position, eroding the labour market.
If people were willing to be slaves, should we allow them?
1. Bar them from entry into your country 2. Allow them in, but prevent them from offering their services at a lower rate to compete with locals?
Because ultimately, if you let them in and don't let them work, some of them are going to be supported by social services those workers are paying for indirectly.
The answer in the Netherlands is that for most industries that have one the collective agreement has been declared universally binding. It applies to everyone in that industry, whether they're a member of one of the bargaining organizations or not, and if a company ignores it they're breaking the law.
The one race to the bottom is workers from other countries within the European Union as the free market and movement within EU complicates things then.
(In addition: unions for employers exist as well.)
Your charge is nakedly hypocritical.
It's like asking, why should the government tell business how they can or cannot do business? It's essentially an anti-trust issue. You don't want any organization to have too much power, whether it's a company or a union or even the government. You want power to be distributed as much as possible, but unions, like any other organization, centralize it.
The typical argument is that corporations centralize it too, but the answer to this is more anti-trust measures, not less.
Typo?
There are plenty of stories/examples (so not just n=1) of these kinds of boneheaded rules that just make things very inefficient.
For what it's worth, that is simply not a thing in Sweden. Being a union member (or not) is completely separated from any certifications or licensing. You cannot have being a union member as a requirement for hiring someone or have jobs that are only open to union members.
Maybe the US Unions need to change name to something else because they act nothing like Unions in Europe. From what I see described by movies and companies it sounds more like Maffia, is that correct or is it propaganda?
I hope to see more bargaining and unionizing by workers. We need a shift in the power dynamics in the United States.
For Tesla, with China's export of electric vehicle it would be a good thing to "set the bar" and prevent low cost workers from entering the market - hence securing Tesla's position in Sweden.
And that's what the "Swedish model" of working is all about, Unions "set the lower bar" for what is acceptable and what is not.
Once they have established their power, they do anything they can to impose their law on other workers and collect money from both the owners, and the other employees.
And to be considered part of the group, you have to pay an annual membership to them in order to get “protected”.
And honestly I’d argue this fairly liberal approach encourages entrepreneurship because you have so many safety nets
Unions typically offer collectively bargained felt insurance and such here as well
https://alfakassan.se/en/when-you-receive-benefits/
You can go through an union, because they managed to take over parts of the government system that distributes the subsidies, but you are just adding one intermediary to whom you pay a fee and encouraging that (which can be a good thing too, in case they are actively supportive and more efficient; someone local may know better).
Though, what I originally wanted to express, is that in some companies, if you are not member of a specific union, then you do not get access to promotions, to the most interesting jobs, or even getting the risk to getting fired because you suddenly do mistakes and be replaced with someone more union-friendly, etc.
This is the type of protection I meant. Protecting you from their own harm.
For example, my work environment in France was so toxic that over time I developed psychological problems, because the institution could not address the abuse, harassment, bullying, etc, since everyone had secure permanent contracts protected by unions.
If the doctor tells you that you need antibiotics to survive your infection, do you dwell on all the possible side effects, or do you just want to not die?
If this is not just being pendantic, it seems to imply that having no unions are better than having unions. Is that actually what you want to argue here? If not, what are you trying to contribute?
Even of I look at the most problematic union conduct I can recall of the top of my head it is absolutely dwarfed by any potential abuse coming from corporations which unarguably is many magnitudes more problematic. And this includes armed rebellions against company armies.
It is a bit like pointing to a few cases were ambulances produced traffic accidents and demand that they can't be trusted for that reason. Maybe it's my physics interest, but if this was a formula I would say we can ignore the union downsides because they are insignificant.
Unions over all have shown to be helping raise the standards for even those who are not in them and there is enough sociological research to back that conclusively. Systemically, if corporations would share their success with their employees instead of trying to maximize the extracted value. So the flavour of unions you will get has to do with the society you are in.
In an era where corporate sends Pinkerton thugs to beat up people unions will jive very differently than in a social democratic nation in Scandinavia in the 2020s. Heck, I would even say that in the rugged-individualism-embarassed-billionaire-land that the US is, unions would take on a different shape than in any neighbouring country just based on cultural differences. So a bit more nuance and a look at things at scale is certainly needed.
(Well, unless when you want to protect jobs from moving abroad, then the solidarity is gone. Eg. the German unions are great at ensuring that any job cuts happens in other European countries instead of in Germany)
I've lived in Brazil and over there most unions are disgraceful corrupt and nepotist institutions. Their directors are filthy rich from a time every worker was forced to pay a day of his wages every year. Opting out was as convenient and hard you can imagine and most agreements were corrupt dealings in closed doors with no regard to the interest of workers.
The one union I was forced to participate had its director caught accepting bribery and hiring his own family for director roles, whom in turn were lavished in gifts from companies like imported luxury vehicles.
The obligatory association law was abolished a few years ago but these unions are still trying to lobby government to provide an alternative to. A few months ago the Supreme Court came to an understanding it was okay to bring back the tax with opt out system under a different name.
(The trucks are manufactured by Volvo AB.)
They have to comply with all relevant Swedish laws for a public Swedish company and all requirements imposed by the Stockholm stock exchange.
Geely Holding owns 82% of Volvo Cars AB according to recent data. Swedish pension companies AMF and Folksam are second and third largest owner with 3.8% and 2.0% of the votes.
So while Geely of course has a massive influence on the company, they can not do whatever they want, they have to abide by the rules and respect the other owners as well, and the other owners are also present on eg the board
The new EX30 will also be built in Belgium it was recently announced.
And Volvo is looking at building new factories in USA.
That Tesla isn't even willing to accept the smallest concessions in countries they operate in, no idea why they do this...
Workers in Sweden Will Expand Strike Against Tesla
----- Translation -------
IF Metall's fight is also our fight. By refusing to comply with the rules of the game here in Sweden, Tesla is trying to gain competitive advantages by giving the workers worse wages and conditions than they would have with a collective agreement. It is of course completely unacceptable. The fight that IF Metall is now taking is important for the entire Swedish collective agreement model. Therefore, our union board has chosen to issue a sympathy notice, says Seko's union president, Gabriella Lavecchia.
Seko's sympathy measures involve a blockade against the delivery, delivery and collection of shipments, letters, packages and pallets made by PostNord and CityMail to all of Tesla's workplaces in all locations in Sweden. This means that, for example, spare parts and components for the workshops will not be delivered by these logistics companies. The blockade means that the sympathy measures remain even if another company takes over the blocked work.
- We back IF Metall 100 percent in this important conflict. We are in an important period for the Swedish trade union movement and for the Swedish model. We and our members will do everything we can so that together we will emerge victorious from this fight for fair conditions for Tesla's employees, says Seko's contract secretary, Ulrika Nilsson.
Seko's industrial action will take effect on 20 November 2023 at 01:00
Notice of extension of conflict measures will be taken in the event that there is a violation of the strike measures.