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”.
Proving yet again why government monopolies are bad ideas, and why public employee unions are an even worse idea. This is mob-imposed bullying, and that’s all it is. Tyranny of the majority in the flesh.
Right - because Tesla is a big company, and more importantly, one that we don’t like, the rules no longer apply and it’s ok to employ the mob to force them to do what we want.
The postal service - which is government owned - is refusing to provide service to a company unless that company unionizes its workforce - and people are cheering for it. The government is not supposed to endorse or allow this kind of discrimination.
“Hell yeah we are we if they want to come here they better play with our rules”. Does Sweden require companies to have unionized workers? Those machinists agreed to work at Tesla knowing there was no union, accepted the job, and then decided to unionize.
So - you would be ok with the mail service refusing to deliver mail to Mosques?
“Also discrimination lol. Its a company not a person”
Companies are owned and run by people. So, again, a Mosque is a building, not a person, so it would be ok - under your rules - for the postal service to refuse delivery to the Mosque.
And its not even about the workers joining unions. They dont have to. But the work place has to talk with unions to agree to a collective agreement.
Tesla isnt singled out most fucking companies and all large companies have to do this. 90% of all buisnesses do this and the exceptions are generally stuff like small family owned resturants.
Is it a legal requirement? No cause sweden have low legal requirements for both sides. But in Sweden the law isnt really considered the minimum.
Basically Tesla needs to stop crying and do the same shit everyone else got to fo
Tesla wants the rules of the system they are operating in not to apply to them.
That’s what this is all about. If Metal wants the standard rules of the Swedish market to apply to tesla. Tesla because they are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid wants to avoid being a part of said standard rule set.
Thus the system that protects corporations in Sweden and guarantees a stable and almost strike free economy does not protect them.
This is because the entire system is built upon a mutual understanding between the unions and the employers. (BTW the unions are incentivised to keep companies alive and people employed because it is they who pay for unemployment benefits)
Tesla is free to operate outside this system. But then they should have no illusions about being able to access the work of the people within it. This includes the bank clerks BTW who have in the past refused to handle the financial activities of corporations in as a sympathy strike.
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.
That’s called a “democracy”. Taking into account you are living in an undemocratic country where a minority can elect a president, you are obviously struggling with the concept.
The US is not a pure Democracy, never has been, but referring to it as an “undemocratic country” is just an ignorant slur. “Where a minority can elect a president” - that’s a common misconception among the ignorant. The individual states are sovereign in the US, the individual states select their choice for president based on a majority of votes within the state. It’s precisely that mechanism that protects the US from experiencing Tyranny of the majority the same way Europe does.
No. The US has not popular vote at the federal level, and the popular vote has no meaning within our Constitution. The majority is decided in the electoral college, not the popular vote.
Is it any different than almost every country with a parliamentary system where the PM isn’t elected by the people and their party gets nowhere near the majority of votes
Proving yet again why government monopolies are bad ideas, and why public employee unions are an even worse idea. This is mob-imposed bullying, and that’s all it is. Tyranny of the majority in the flesh.
Poor little Tesla :(.
Come on man
Right - because Tesla is a big company, and more importantly, one that we don’t like, the rules no longer apply and it’s ok to employ the mob to force them to do what we want.
The rules do apply. No laws are being broken here
The postal service - which is government owned - is refusing to provide service to a company unless that company unionizes its workforce - and people are cheering for it. The government is not supposed to endorse or allow this kind of discrimination.
Hell yeah we are we if they want to come here they better play with our rules. We dont want them to break in and start fucking our systems up.
Also discrimination lol. Its a company not a person
“Hell yeah we are we if they want to come here they better play with our rules”. Does Sweden require companies to have unionized workers? Those machinists agreed to work at Tesla knowing there was no union, accepted the job, and then decided to unionize.
So - you would be ok with the mail service refusing to deliver mail to Mosques?
“Also discrimination lol. Its a company not a person”
Companies are owned and run by people. So, again, a Mosque is a building, not a person, so it would be ok - under your rules - for the postal service to refuse delivery to the Mosque.
If the mosque refused to have a agreement sure.
And its not even about the workers joining unions. They dont have to. But the work place has to talk with unions to agree to a collective agreement.
Tesla isnt singled out most fucking companies and all large companies have to do this. 90% of all buisnesses do this and the exceptions are generally stuff like small family owned resturants.
Is it a legal requirement? No cause sweden have low legal requirements for both sides. But in Sweden the law isnt really considered the minimum.
Basically Tesla needs to stop crying and do the same shit everyone else got to fo
Tesla wants the rules of the system they are operating in not to apply to them.
That’s what this is all about. If Metal wants the standard rules of the Swedish market to apply to tesla. Tesla because they are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid wants to avoid being a part of said standard rule set.
Thus the system that protects corporations in Sweden and guarantees a stable and almost strike free economy does not protect them.
This is because the entire system is built upon a mutual understanding between the unions and the employers. (BTW the unions are incentivised to keep companies alive and people employed because it is they who pay for unemployment benefits)
Tesla is free to operate outside this system. But then they should have no illusions about being able to access the work of the people within it. This includes the bank clerks BTW who have in the past refused to handle the financial activities of corporations in as a sympathy strike.
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.
That’s called a “democracy”. Taking into account you are living in an undemocratic country where a minority can elect a president, you are obviously struggling with the concept.
The US is not a pure Democracy, never has been, but referring to it as an “undemocratic country” is just an ignorant slur. “Where a minority can elect a president” - that’s a common misconception among the ignorant. The individual states are sovereign in the US, the individual states select their choice for president based on a majority of votes within the state. It’s precisely that mechanism that protects the US from experiencing Tyranny of the majority the same way Europe does.
This is simply a fact 😂
No. The US has not popular vote at the federal level, and the popular vote has no meaning within our Constitution. The majority is decided in the electoral college, not the popular vote.
Yes, which means the president is often selected by the minority of the voters against the will of the majority.
You know, like in a some dictatorships. In Soviet Union for example the state leader was selected by politburo members.
Is it any different than almost every country with a parliamentary system where the PM isn’t elected by the people and their party gets nowhere near the majority of votes
Think again, slowly.
It’s a statement of fact - multiple presidents in the last 25 years have been elected despite having fewer votes than an opponent.
Curious to hear your thoughts on police unions