That’s not a good reason to be bullied into a union. Until it’s law that employees must be part of a union, the discussion is moot.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Unionization
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
That’s not a good reason to be bullied into a union. Until it’s law that employees must be part of a union, the discussion is moot.
She will do so under pressure. When meeting with my MI state legislators a few years ago, I spoke to a couple Dems that owned Teslas (and loved them) but sold because their main constituents were UAW workers and several complained.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Has any employee of Tesla asked for support?
This is a quest for fact, while you continue to dance around hypotheticals.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Finally, we have hit upon the crux of the matter.
Why, indeed, cannot people negotiate for themselves?
The purpose of a union is the last resort, once an actual problem exists and individual negotiation has been unsuccessful.
This entire fiasco is based upon the presumption of a problem when there is no evidence to support the presumption.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
This "fight" is made up entirely of questions which you have not offered responses for.
The fight must be going on inside your head.
The facts, or lack thereof, speak volumes toward how IF Metall is being portrayed by YOU, based entirely upon your platitudes founded upon a presumption for which you offer no conclusive support.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
IF Metall appears to be doing to themselves what the UAW is doing to their members' employers. It is unlikely to end well.
IF Metall do not seem to be first-principles based strategist, and, they are going up against Tesla?
Perhaps it is time for all unions to revisit the story of the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.
IF Metall do not seem to be first-principles based strategist, and, they are going up against Tesla?
Perhaps it is time for all unions to revisit the story of the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.
Krugerrand
Meow
And he’s married to her, thusly they’re a ‘family’ and it’s a ‘family’ car regardless of whose name it’s in? Or is there no common law/50/50 marriage assets law in Sweden? I have to ask this now because your country definitely has some odd ideas of what’s fair and right.
My spouse and I have three licensed and insured vehicles; for specific reasons at the time, two are in the spouse’s name, one is in both our names. CT will also likely end up in my spouse’s name. Rest assured, all are ‘family’ vehicles (family meaning just the two of us) and in a divorce the courts won’t care one iota whose name any of them are in; I’ll be getting my half.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
And you honestly expect me to know these things?...
He stated in some media interview that the Y is his wife's car. I don't know any more than that, and I'm certainly not going to do anything at all to try and find out more about this either.
@SwedishAdvocate Do you really think that the sympathy actions are reasonable? Even if they end up putting some companies out of business (they have to turn away 70% of their current clients because their employees can no longer work on Tesla vehicles) or results in more than 50 employees being laid off because they can no longer make parts for Tesla vehicles? When in reality the actions are not likely to hurt Tesla at all.
Just to be clear: I have no problem with the Tesla mechanics striking if they think Tesla is treating them wrongly.
Just to be clear: I have no problem with the Tesla mechanics striking if they think Tesla is treating them wrongly.
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
I do appreciate you representing the pro-Swedish-union perspective - even if the position doesn't make much sense to my style of logic, it's helpful for us to understand that you represent a significant portion of a specific culture, and there is precedence/context that is very different than North America in particular... The history of unions in America are a bit more... "volatile," I'd say.
(And you probably had more patience than I might if I was in your shoes!)
Last edited:
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Answering the question posed by @Krugerrand would be no more expected than would be an answer to any logical query put to you.
You have made it abundantly clear that answers are not your forte', based upon repeated inability to provide answers to direct questions regarding detail on the topics which you have brought up.
If making remedy of this is something which would interest you, look through my responses for the "?" symbol and consider the sentence it ends as if it were one you might like to provide an answer for.
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Current mood: Feeling that I've wasted way too much time on this. So don't hold your breath.
I would not mind if we stopped trying to prove each other "right" or "wrong" on the concept of Unions and their place/traditions/future in Sweden, Scandinavia, the USA, and the World Writ Large.
Signal to noise ratio here has gotten rather low.
I appreciate the news and the updates from afar, with the occasional opinion, cheer, or jeer sprinkled in. Humble request: Can we take the other stuff to direct messages please?
(All contributions to this thread appreciated, but also back and forth has become tiresome. If I am the only one who thinks so, I am happy to fall back to the main roundtable thread; it gets some updates on this topic)
Signal to noise ratio here has gotten rather low.
I appreciate the news and the updates from afar, with the occasional opinion, cheer, or jeer sprinkled in. Humble request: Can we take the other stuff to direct messages please?
(All contributions to this thread appreciated, but also back and forth has become tiresome. If I am the only one who thinks so, I am happy to fall back to the main roundtable thread; it gets some updates on this topic)
Krugerrand
Meow
Don’t be coy. We both know why you posted it was his wife’s car after the quote stating it was the family car.
Don’t be coy. We both know why you posted it was his wife’s car after the quote stating it was the family car.
And at that it is the only family car:
And they even bought it after he knew that Tesla didn't have a collective agreement:
Though he did try to buy a BMW instead:
But he will no longer drive it:
Sourced from: Sweden union IF Metall lawyer admits his family has a Tesla Model Y
Krugerrand
Meow
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
All I am interested in is whether or not the intent of IT Metall is to actually address a known problem with Tesla.
The only response to direct inquiry so far is being painted with broad brush strokes. Strokes which appear to presume all Swedish employers as being violators of the conditions of employment for the entire working force. Which is absurd.
The most sincere response has been the one by IF Metall's Marie Nilsson:
“If Tesla shows it’s possible to operate in Sweden without a collective agreement, then other companies could be tempted to do the same”
This is the real issue they are fighting tooth and nail over. Their union may be becoming irrelevant.
I fully suspect Swedes are reasonable people and the need for a union like IF Metall may no longer be all that important. Changes affected over time have created an environment where awareness of worker's rights to a safe workplace, good wages, and respect by their employer have risen to the point of making obsolete the notion of needing representation from a union.
It would seem that the people who are in dire straits will be the paid administrators of the union itself.
Tesla bucking the system is precedent setting, and could lead to the union having a significantly reduced role in Sweden if they cannot somehow justify their grandiose actions to date with Tesla.
Many of those who are employed by IF Metall might find themselves applying for jobs at Tesla if they are unable to whitewash this farce in such a way as to bring the company to heel under their tactics.
Based upon the information provided, there are no facts being offered to warrant such a large scale fight to "protect employees" at Tesla. Many of which have stated publicly how they believe their working conditions and pay are superior to those the union recommends.
This would make for a great and funny story by the likes of Mark Twain, highlighting the absurdity of people, if it weren't for the fact that it is actually happening.
If so, what is the nature of the complaint?
If not, what is with the outrageous posture of enlisting other unions' employees in order to force Tesla to comply?
The only response to direct inquiry so far is being painted with broad brush strokes. Strokes which appear to presume all Swedish employers as being violators of the conditions of employment for the entire working force. Which is absurd.
The most sincere response has been the one by IF Metall's Marie Nilsson:
“If Tesla shows it’s possible to operate in Sweden without a collective agreement, then other companies could be tempted to do the same”
This is the real issue they are fighting tooth and nail over. Their union may be becoming irrelevant.
I fully suspect Swedes are reasonable people and the need for a union like IF Metall may no longer be all that important. Changes affected over time have created an environment where awareness of worker's rights to a safe workplace, good wages, and respect by their employer have risen to the point of making obsolete the notion of needing representation from a union.
It would seem that the people who are in dire straits will be the paid administrators of the union itself.
Tesla bucking the system is precedent setting, and could lead to the union having a significantly reduced role in Sweden if they cannot somehow justify their grandiose actions to date with Tesla.
Many of those who are employed by IF Metall might find themselves applying for jobs at Tesla if they are unable to whitewash this farce in such a way as to bring the company to heel under their tactics.
Based upon the information provided, there are no facts being offered to warrant such a large scale fight to "protect employees" at Tesla. Many of which have stated publicly how they believe their working conditions and pay are superior to those the union recommends.
This would make for a great and funny story by the likes of Mark Twain, highlighting the absurdity of people, if it weren't for the fact that it is actually happening.
Last edited:
And really they are bringing it on themselves, as most people probably had no idea that Tesla didn't have a collective agreement. But now IF Metall has made sure that everyone knows... That may have been their biggest mistake.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
You've led me to imagine other companies jumping on the non-collective agreement bandwagon, and IF Metall trying to perpetrate this debacle using the same tactics upon multiple fronts simultaneously.
It could be an entertaining show. (when viewed from a safe distance)
I get the feeling that a lot of pro union people think that Tesla should join because of majority rule, aka democracy. I think it stems from the western liberal view that democracy = good. Imo a better mental model is that democracy often lead to good policies, but sometimes bad. A policy can be any permutation of good/bad and democracy/undemocratic, it's not that the democratic policy is good per se.
And imo the defence of democracy generally only makes sense for big groups, as soon as you try to make concrete examples for smaller groups, pro democracy people often become very uncomfortable. For example a group of 3 people want to go see a movie. They decide to hold a vote. 2 votes for Oppenheimer and 1 vote for Barbie. So the decision is to go see Oppenheimer. The Barbie person says that then I don't want to join, I have no interest in watching the movie, you two guys can go watch it alone. Most people here feel that this is fine and how it should be done. But in a democracy this becomes a bit more unclear. They decided to vote, so now everyone has to follow the will of the majority and everyone has to watch Oppenheimer. Like with nation states etc.
There will be a lot of "this feels wrong, so now I will try to justify democracy, here is x random arguments that don't really hold", social contract etc. It's pretty easy to dismantle most arguments, see for example this video.
So we are mostly back to mob rule/tyranny of the majority. But we don't like to be the bad guy so we will try to pretend that we are not imposing our ideas on the minority, they just don't know what's best for them which is what I want. As long as you are in the majority it can seem a bit irrational that people don't want to do as you think they should, why are they fighting against us good guys in the majority? Why do they want to upset the nice order we have. But as soon as you find yourself in the minority of a few important issue you can actually start to acknowledge at least some of the oppression needed in a democracy.
I think the Swedish unions have been in the majority for such a long time that they have convinced themselves that they are the good guys and what they do is good. Here comes Elon Musk and refuses to follow them, he must be evil. Whatever the union does is good and whatever resistance is evil. Words such as "Swedish Model", "strike breaker" etc highlight the struggle between the majority and the minority. In America the unions have not been the majority for a long time and all their scandals have made them feel less like the good guy, so they feel more guilty about imposing the policies than the Swedish unions do.
Imo the main discussion should be about proportionality. x number at Tesla want collective agrement, maybe 12 to 40. Who knows. How bad is it to not have collective agreement when you want it? Life and death? A small economic hit? How much are the union sacrificing in their campaign to get there? 50 jobs at Werksta and Hydro extrusions. A lot fewer future contracts to Tesla and other companies in the future, let's say a few hundred future jobs. Is it worth it? Will postnord have to give up all contracts with the government as they can no longer guarantee that they will deliver post as soon as the union calls? Will the government have to have a policy to never use companies with collective agreements when they do critical work they by law have to provide? Is the price worth it?
And imo the defence of democracy generally only makes sense for big groups, as soon as you try to make concrete examples for smaller groups, pro democracy people often become very uncomfortable. For example a group of 3 people want to go see a movie. They decide to hold a vote. 2 votes for Oppenheimer and 1 vote for Barbie. So the decision is to go see Oppenheimer. The Barbie person says that then I don't want to join, I have no interest in watching the movie, you two guys can go watch it alone. Most people here feel that this is fine and how it should be done. But in a democracy this becomes a bit more unclear. They decided to vote, so now everyone has to follow the will of the majority and everyone has to watch Oppenheimer. Like with nation states etc.
There will be a lot of "this feels wrong, so now I will try to justify democracy, here is x random arguments that don't really hold", social contract etc. It's pretty easy to dismantle most arguments, see for example this video.
So we are mostly back to mob rule/tyranny of the majority. But we don't like to be the bad guy so we will try to pretend that we are not imposing our ideas on the minority, they just don't know what's best for them which is what I want. As long as you are in the majority it can seem a bit irrational that people don't want to do as you think they should, why are they fighting against us good guys in the majority? Why do they want to upset the nice order we have. But as soon as you find yourself in the minority of a few important issue you can actually start to acknowledge at least some of the oppression needed in a democracy.
I think the Swedish unions have been in the majority for such a long time that they have convinced themselves that they are the good guys and what they do is good. Here comes Elon Musk and refuses to follow them, he must be evil. Whatever the union does is good and whatever resistance is evil. Words such as "Swedish Model", "strike breaker" etc highlight the struggle between the majority and the minority. In America the unions have not been the majority for a long time and all their scandals have made them feel less like the good guy, so they feel more guilty about imposing the policies than the Swedish unions do.
Imo the main discussion should be about proportionality. x number at Tesla want collective agrement, maybe 12 to 40. Who knows. How bad is it to not have collective agreement when you want it? Life and death? A small economic hit? How much are the union sacrificing in their campaign to get there? 50 jobs at Werksta and Hydro extrusions. A lot fewer future contracts to Tesla and other companies in the future, let's say a few hundred future jobs. Is it worth it? Will postnord have to give up all contracts with the government as they can no longer guarantee that they will deliver post as soon as the union calls? Will the government have to have a policy to never use companies with collective agreements when they do critical work they by law have to provide? Is the price worth it?
Last edited:
