The conflict between Swedish unions and Tesla heated up on Friday as a supplier of critical components joined in a sympathy action to get the electric car maker to sign a collective bargaining agreement for its Swedish workers.
Finally, a salient answer. I can work with that. It seems that nobody would accept an offer of employment at a lower wage than they could get elsewhere, so, I’m dubious on that claim by the union.
I see the points about increases. There are no ‘laws’ about increases being mandatory/ written in stone here in the U.S. either. From the context of my experience at companies I’ve worked for, it depends on company performance. In profitable years the increase is more than less profitable years. That does leave the door open for a company to not be honest but then an employee has the option/freedom to leave that company for a better one. In general, those companies that are better in this regard (pay, retirement/pension benefits, etc) are more sought after and have higher employee retention.
I’ve left companies I wasn’t happy with after voluntarily accepting the offer of employment. I think that’s a fundamental difference in perspectives on this issue: some people say there is freedom to move to where you’re treated best and you have the option of accepting terms of employment or not when they are offered versus the others who say any company they work for must provide a certain set of benefits even if the employee initially accepted the terms offered which did not include those…
The increases in the CBA is very low. It’s to ensure you that you get at least some increase. Because if you don’t, and there is inflation, you are essentually have less buying power even if you have one more year of experience.
It has to go really bad for a company, or the employee has to do really bad to get the minimum raise as stated in the CBA. Just like everywhere else, you get more raise when the company does well, it’s the difference between zero and just above zero.
Why would anyone take the job? One answer is that they couldn’t get any other job, or the jobs thay could take with better pay was too far away. Or that the rent was due and the job at Tesla was the quickest one available, at that point you are in no position to argue about part time retirement. There’s many occasions when you have to take a job even if you think the wages is too low. That’s why the different companies sit down together with the union and discuss what’s the absolute lowest reasonable pay.
Note that this also can be a useful play by the companies. If Tesla can pay higly over the lowest pay. They can go into those negotiations trying to press that number up so that their competition also have to pay more.
Yes, but I’ve also heard unions being called maffia so I think they somewhat cancel each other out. =)
Workers band toghether in unions and companies band together in employer organization and they together say what is best for each sector. A single company is too small to deal with the unions similar to how a single employee is to small to deal with the company. To set the rules for an entire sector of the labor market you need everyone to be involved.
And the companies don’t really collude together other then when they are dealing with the unions.
Then both unions and employer organisations band together into LO and Svenskt Näringsliv to be big enough to deal with the government.
Those are all possible scenarios for why a person (the mechanics in this case) would accept terms that were not customary locally. But, honestly, the reasons you cite are supposition/conjecture.
I admit we can’t know why those Six mechanics voluntarily accepted the terms that are not Customary elsewhere locally.
So, I’ll offer my own supposition/conjecture to the mix: Its entirely just as possible that there was a strategy at play. Only they know.
Finally, a salient answer. I can work with that. It seems that nobody would accept an offer of employment at a lower wage than they could get elsewhere, so, I’m dubious on that claim by the union.
I see the points about increases. There are no ‘laws’ about increases being mandatory/ written in stone here in the U.S. either. From the context of my experience at companies I’ve worked for, it depends on company performance. In profitable years the increase is more than less profitable years. That does leave the door open for a company to not be honest but then an employee has the option/freedom to leave that company for a better one. In general, those companies that are better in this regard (pay, retirement/pension benefits, etc) are more sought after and have higher employee retention.
I’ve left companies I wasn’t happy with after voluntarily accepting the offer of employment. I think that’s a fundamental difference in perspectives on this issue: some people say there is freedom to move to where you’re treated best and you have the option of accepting terms of employment or not when they are offered versus the others who say any company they work for must provide a certain set of benefits even if the employee initially accepted the terms offered which did not include those…
Why did the mechanics take the job, then?
The increases in the CBA is very low. It’s to ensure you that you get at least some increase. Because if you don’t, and there is inflation, you are essentually have less buying power even if you have one more year of experience.
It has to go really bad for a company, or the employee has to do really bad to get the minimum raise as stated in the CBA. Just like everywhere else, you get more raise when the company does well, it’s the difference between zero and just above zero.
Why would anyone take the job? One answer is that they couldn’t get any other job, or the jobs thay could take with better pay was too far away. Or that the rent was due and the job at Tesla was the quickest one available, at that point you are in no position to argue about part time retirement. There’s many occasions when you have to take a job even if you think the wages is too low. That’s why the different companies sit down together with the union and discuss what’s the absolute lowest reasonable pay.
Note that this also can be a useful play by the companies. If Tesla can pay higly over the lowest pay. They can go into those negotiations trying to press that number up so that their competition also have to pay more.
“That’s why the different companies sit down together with the union and discuss what’s the absolute lowest reasonable pay.”
That’s interesting, we call that collusion and it’s illegal here.
Collusion to what?
That’s literally what unions do: bargain on behalf of their members.
It’s right there in the highlight (Bold) I provided.
Yes, but I’ve also heard unions being called maffia so I think they somewhat cancel each other out. =)
Workers band toghether in unions and companies band together in employer organization and they together say what is best for each sector. A single company is too small to deal with the unions similar to how a single employee is to small to deal with the company. To set the rules for an entire sector of the labor market you need everyone to be involved.
And the companies don’t really collude together other then when they are dealing with the unions.
Then both unions and employer organisations band together into LO and Svenskt Näringsliv to be big enough to deal with the government.
Ah, I’m reminded of various news stories about Unions being charged and convicted on different violations here in the U.S.
Those are all possible scenarios for why a person (the mechanics in this case) would accept terms that were not customary locally. But, honestly, the reasons you cite are supposition/conjecture.
I admit we can’t know why those Six mechanics voluntarily accepted the terms that are not Customary elsewhere locally.
So, I’ll offer my own supposition/conjecture to the mix: Its entirely just as possible that there was a strategy at play. Only they know.