IF Metalls strejk kommer att stoppa nya Teslabilar från att tas i trafik. Orsaken är sympatiåtgärden som blockerar Postnords hantering av post till Tesla.Enligt Transportstyrelsen får inte registreringsskyltarna delas ut på annat sätt. Tesla rasar mot myndighetens och statliga Postnords ”oproportionerliga agerande”.
There’s no rule that says Tesla can’t operate with a non-unionized work force. What you are describing is a mob-run protection racket whereby the unions agree not to strike so long as a privately-owned company cedes decision making power to the union.
More importantly, you are describing unwritten rules imposed not by the government but by the mobs of union enforcers who believe they are entitled to co-ownership over businesses just because they are employed there.
“Tesla is free to operate outside this system…” you mean, they can try but they won’t enjoy equal protection under the law, and the government unions will attack them relentlessly. If you don’t want to work there, then don’t work there - but you aren’t entitled to work there AND demand Tesla recognize your union.
Unions have too much power and take no responsibility for their actions; Unions are effectively demanding squatters rights.
Because the law has no part of the protection. The protection comes from the agreement between workers and the employers.
Under the Swedish system both sides of the negotiations want the companies to succeed. It’s a system where almost everything related to labour relations, from compensation to work safely, is handled through the negotiations between the unions and the employers associations.
Also very funny about unions taking no responsibility, they are literally responsible for handling unemployment benefits, out of their own money. So if they go around killing companies they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
It’s a system where the incentive structures are set up in a way that encourages both sides to cooperate to achieve the best possible results for all sides.
If the government-controlled mail service can refuse to deliver mail to non-unionized employers, then there is no equal protection under the law.
“The last has no part of the protection. The protection comes from the agreement between workers and the employers.”
I think you said it better, except if the employers don’t agree, then there will be no peace. The employers don’t have a choice because the unions will make sure there is no peace unless the employers meet the union’s demands.
That’s not a system - it’s a protection racket - “That’s a nice shop you have there, be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”
The mail service isn’t refusing to deliver, the workers are. The mail service is just not allowed to replace those workers. The workers are free to refuse to service, it is in connection to a valid strike after all.
Yes the system is based on a truce between the employer and the employee. This is a truce that was effectively started in the 1930s after a couple of Union disputes ended with corpses (because the government was called in which lead to the military shooting striking workers). After that debacle both the employers and the employees decided they didn’t want government involvement in dealings in between them. To achieve this they must find common ground and work together. That is the foundation of the system.
It’s all based on mutual understanding that everyone wants the companies to succeed. It’s not an exploitative extortion racket by the unions. IF Metal has even been accused of being to soft in the recent past not negotiating strongly enough and getting worse deals than they could have. What is important in the system is that consensus on what rules we are to operate under is achieved. Something tesla refuses to agree to. Thus they break the truce that’s almost 100 years old. Then they do something that hasn’t been concidered proper for a equally long time long time (hire scabs and strike breakers). The does not take well to this refusal to sit at the table like adults. And thus the conflict has no other option but to escalate.
And the unions have far more friends to call in. Thus like toysrus before it is get out or sign.
There’s no rule that says Tesla can’t operate with a non-unionized work force. What you are describing is a mob-run protection racket whereby the unions agree not to strike so long as a privately-owned company cedes decision making power to the union.
More importantly, you are describing unwritten rules imposed not by the government but by the mobs of union enforcers who believe they are entitled to co-ownership over businesses just because they are employed there.
“Tesla is free to operate outside this system…” you mean, they can try but they won’t enjoy equal protection under the law, and the government unions will attack them relentlessly. If you don’t want to work there, then don’t work there - but you aren’t entitled to work there AND demand Tesla recognize your union.
Unions have too much power and take no responsibility for their actions; Unions are effectively demanding squatters rights.
They have equal protection under the law
Because the law has no part of the protection. The protection comes from the agreement between workers and the employers.
Under the Swedish system both sides of the negotiations want the companies to succeed. It’s a system where almost everything related to labour relations, from compensation to work safely, is handled through the negotiations between the unions and the employers associations.
Also very funny about unions taking no responsibility, they are literally responsible for handling unemployment benefits, out of their own money. So if they go around killing companies they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
It’s a system where the incentive structures are set up in a way that encourages both sides to cooperate to achieve the best possible results for all sides.
If the government-controlled mail service can refuse to deliver mail to non-unionized employers, then there is no equal protection under the law.
“The last has no part of the protection. The protection comes from the agreement between workers and the employers.”
I think you said it better, except if the employers don’t agree, then there will be no peace. The employers don’t have a choice because the unions will make sure there is no peace unless the employers meet the union’s demands.
That’s not a system - it’s a protection racket - “That’s a nice shop you have there, be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”
The mail service isn’t refusing to deliver, the workers are. The mail service is just not allowed to replace those workers. The workers are free to refuse to service, it is in connection to a valid strike after all.
Yes the system is based on a truce between the employer and the employee. This is a truce that was effectively started in the 1930s after a couple of Union disputes ended with corpses (because the government was called in which lead to the military shooting striking workers). After that debacle both the employers and the employees decided they didn’t want government involvement in dealings in between them. To achieve this they must find common ground and work together. That is the foundation of the system.
It’s all based on mutual understanding that everyone wants the companies to succeed. It’s not an exploitative extortion racket by the unions. IF Metal has even been accused of being to soft in the recent past not negotiating strongly enough and getting worse deals than they could have. What is important in the system is that consensus on what rules we are to operate under is achieved. Something tesla refuses to agree to. Thus they break the truce that’s almost 100 years old. Then they do something that hasn’t been concidered proper for a equally long time long time (hire scabs and strike breakers). The does not take well to this refusal to sit at the table like adults. And thus the conflict has no other option but to escalate.
And the unions have far more friends to call in. Thus like toysrus before it is get out or sign.