Strikebreakers arrived by taxi to Tesla's workshops in Sweden(da.se)
da.se
Strikebreakers arrived by taxi to Tesla's workshops in Sweden
https://da.se/2023/10/strejkbrytare-anlande-i-taxi-till-tesla-verkstader-runt-om-i-landet/
7 comments
Isn't this just the norm though? Most companies seem to do this to keep things ticking over whilst strike action is ongoing, is strikebreaking illegal in Sweden?
It's not illegal, but it's frowned upon.
I'm slightly confused by the tone, but perhaps it's the machine translation. Is strike breaking illegal in Sweden or are they just surprised that it has happened? Is strike breaking very unusual in Sweden? Because as an American, this is exactly what I expect Tesla to do.
https://www.thelocal.se/20231027/tesla-threatens-to-bring-in...
> "If they bring in strikebreakers then that's completely unique," IF Metall's bargaining agreement secretary, Veli-Pekka Säikkälä, told the newspaper. "That would be crossing all boundaries. That kind of thing happened in Sweden in the 1920s and 30s."
> "If they start employing strikebreakers and actively try to break the strike, then they have mobilised the entire union movement against them. Not just the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, but all of them. Then the issue at hand becomes less important."
> "If they bring in strikebreakers then that's completely unique," IF Metall's bargaining agreement secretary, Veli-Pekka Säikkälä, told the newspaper. "That would be crossing all boundaries. That kind of thing happened in Sweden in the 1920s and 30s."
> "If they start employing strikebreakers and actively try to break the strike, then they have mobilised the entire union movement against them. Not just the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, but all of them. Then the issue at hand becomes less important."
Further HN discussion about that link at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036143 .
Strikebreaking is not necessarily illegal but remember that Sweden, and EU in general, is very heavily unionized. And these unions are not insular - they sometimes co-operate even across sector borders to defend their members' rights (and the respect for worker's rights in general). If they are so inclined, the unions have no shortage of means to force companies to co-operate. If a company is for example breaking rules / angering the unions with impunity, the trade unions can together declare an embargo on this one company. It essentially means that all union members (which in industrial sectors is close to 100% of employees) refuse to carry out orders to e.g. make deliveries or perform services for this one company. This makes it very fast completely infeasible for the company to even operate in the country as they have no access to suppliers.
Because of this, companies generally know that when operating in this part of the world they can't just use strong arm tactics to suppress union activity. It's not even that hard, these unions are not run by stupid people and they are completely capable of negotiating on sensible terms.
Because of this, companies generally know that when operating in this part of the world they can't just use strong arm tactics to suppress union activity. It's not even that hard, these unions are not run by stupid people and they are completely capable of negotiating on sensible terms.
I think strike breaking is pretty much not-done in most of Europe, and hasn't been done for nearly a century. How this will play out is not something I can predict, but it's definitely an escalation and could result in massive boycotts and the end of Tesla in Sweden. It's certainly not a constructive step towards resolving the conflict.
Isn't the alternative just not repairing cars or doing maintenance? In the long run, that's equivalent to not doing business in Sweden anyway isn't it?
The goal of strikes is not to force the employer out of business. In other words: When a strike happens the company has one very prominent alternative besides breaking the strike or closing down forever: Finding an agreement with the striking workers.
If you limit a company to only that option, then they might as well give in to any and all demands, given that they have no leverage. It's like saying that unions should never strike and instead only settle disputes at the negotiation table.
Dutch unions almost never strike, because they settle everything at the negotiation table. It's a standard part of the process: employers, unions and the government discuss labour relations regularly, come to an agreement, and stick to it. It works very well. Happy workers, no strikes, productive companies. Strikes hurt everybody. Smart employers know that it's in their best interest to listen to their workers and prevent strikes.
I don't see how that's relevant. Leverage is about what you have the option to do, not what you actually do. You can have the option to strike if you're the union or hire scabs if you're the company. Both options help you get better terms. You can negotiate terms without doing either strike or strikebreaking. It happens all the time and in many countries. There was just a massive one threatened with UPS workers, which ended without a strike.
It's connected. In Netherland, strikes are rare because each side understands the leverage the other side has, but also because they understand they share a common goal: healthy companies. So that's what they focus on.
Now I'm lost. If you remove the company's option to shut down a division or to hire scabs, then the union side won't "understand the leverage that the other side has." They simply no longer have that leverage. Maybe that would reduce striking, but only because the company is now powerless. But that hardly seems like it's in their "best interest."
You could just as well say the Union is powerless because they don’t want to force the company in ruin. It’s game theory.
Yes, but isn't it still considered normal/acceptable/expected for the union to actually strike if needed? Whereas the origin of this thread is people being surprised/confused that the company would actually hire strikebreakers.
So the point of confusion is the seeming asymmetry about what is considered socially normal/acceptable/expected.
So the point of confusion is the seeming asymmetry about what is considered socially normal/acceptable/expected.
Exactly. I fear Musk's pride and vanity might prevent him from doing so, though. I hope he doesn't get personally involved.
Not swedish but very, very uncommon in germany (I actually wasn't sure whether it's illegal but apparently not, it's just not common). Usually the company tries to negotiate with the union to stop the strike, so this is probably seen as very confrontational.
I don't know for how long they are striking so far, but I would see it as unbelievable confrontational, a show of force from them to prove that they dictate the terms of employment without negotiations or coming to a compromise. I feel I would not accept that.
Usually it is seen that companies have a responsibility to look after their employees.
I don't know for how long they are striking so far, but I would see it as unbelievable confrontational, a show of force from them to prove that they dictate the terms of employment without negotiations or coming to a compromise. I feel I would not accept that.
Usually it is seen that companies have a responsibility to look after their employees.
> Is strike breaking illegal in Sweden or are they just surprised that is has happened?
Not illegal, but unprecedented. Since the Saltsjöbadsavtalet in 1938, unions, workers and unions have mostly agreed on how to act, Tesla seems to be ignoring history and the country's widespread union participation, thinking they know better than 99% of the country's existing industry.
Not illegal, but unprecedented. Since the Saltsjöbadsavtalet in 1938, unions, workers and unions have mostly agreed on how to act, Tesla seems to be ignoring history and the country's widespread union participation, thinking they know better than 99% of the country's existing industry.
This smells very much like a power play by an American executive who is not familiar with just how aware European workers are about their rights.
Is there a right to strike without strike breakers being hired, in Sweden?
Does not seem to be exist, so what rights are you referring to?
Does not seem to be exist, so what rights are you referring to?
The Swedish labor market is in large parts regulated with deals between employers and unions, Sweden doesn't have a legal minimum wage for instance. There's no law forbidding strike breaking, but it's very uncommon and against the spirit of the Swedish labor market since 1938, when the Saltsjöbaden agreement was signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement
the right to strike, strangely enough. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is an existing precedent for dealing with strike action: negotiation. There is also an existing precedent for dealing with companies that use tactics like strike-breaking, and that is systematic shunning. A company in Sweden (and elsehwere) that attempts what Tesla has done here is likely to be boycotted by ALL labour unions - finance, logistics, utilities. It is very difficult to operate when banks will not process your transactions, when calls will not route to your call centers, or when roads to your factory are not cleared by snow plows.
I already knew that, those precedents you refer to are not legal precedents in law or court cases though. When people say rights they generally refer to legal rights.
The legal right is for all of Tesla's suppliers, service providers, partners, etc are allowed to "sympathy strike". This effectively exiles the company from doing business in the country. Tesla is not a particularly large employer in Sweden and does not seem to be particularly loved.
What they are doing (strikebreaker) is "legal" - but when they are removed from market by the sympathetic population, it will be an obvious outcome.
The surprise is that normally logical employers do not work this way in these countries. However, we've seen that emotional responses are often how Musk's companies operate. I expect it to end poorly for him in this case.
Sweden is not a large market, but events like this contribute to Tesla's reputational decline. The Nordic countries were some of the first and fastest to embrace Tesla. But a brand can be ruined faster than it can be built.
What they are doing (strikebreaker) is "legal" - but when they are removed from market by the sympathetic population, it will be an obvious outcome.
The surprise is that normally logical employers do not work this way in these countries. However, we've seen that emotional responses are often how Musk's companies operate. I expect it to end poorly for him in this case.
Sweden is not a large market, but events like this contribute to Tesla's reputational decline. The Nordic countries were some of the first and fastest to embrace Tesla. But a brand can be ruined faster than it can be built.
Mods/admins - why do all union-related stories on HN keep getting buried as soon as they pick up steam?
Could it have something to do with the political convictions of the owners?
Could it have something to do with the political convictions of the owners?
I've noticed this as well, but didn't want to make any claims either way. But seems this story it the frontpage and disappeared quickly. I'm guessing the comment/votes ratio wasn't good enough, or some people flagged the submission for some reason which makes things disappear from the frontpage quickly.
Pretty sure it's foul play at this point. It keeps happening to literally every story about unionization.
Is "scabs" not editorialisation? It's rarely used other than in a derogatory fashion.
The neutral descriptive term for a bad thing still tends to be colored negatively. E.g. murderer.
A “scab” is a person who works for a company when other people are trying to extort that company for higher wages.
The “scab” is fine with the current wage.
Scab is definitely a derogatory term for a non union worker.
The “scab” is fine with the current wage.
Scab is definitely a derogatory term for a non union worker.
Striking isn't extortion. Same as capitalists trying to keep their costs as close to zero as possible isn't extortion.
Yeah I agree this word has a negative connotation but I’m not sure if another one.
They’re trying to collectively quit working at the same time (and use government power to force the company not to actually terminate them) as a way of pressuring a company to raise their wages.
It feels like holding a company hostage? Like for instance a protection racket: this feels identical (pay us or you lose your business) is engaging in the same thing, but feels “worse”.
I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement. If it was just “we aren’t willing to work for that wage anymore”, that’s just bargaining.
They’re trying to collectively quit working at the same time (and use government power to force the company not to actually terminate them) as a way of pressuring a company to raise their wages.
It feels like holding a company hostage? Like for instance a protection racket: this feels identical (pay us or you lose your business) is engaging in the same thing, but feels “worse”.
I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement. If it was just “we aren’t willing to work for that wage anymore”, that’s just bargaining.
If you decided to extend the argument then allow me to extend it even more: any legislation or agreement or marriage or just anything applies - once you have two parties then one is holding the other "hostage". Sounds ridiculous right? Well, because it is. Once you have some leverage - by sake of having money or unions - you use it. Just like Tesla holds "hostages" his employees, they hold "hostage" the company for contract conditions. Hostages everywhere, if you want so, because neither the company nor the employees live in a void.
I feel like your outlook implies a commitment to an American ideology where the company and capitalist has all the power, and the worker has almost no rights but to conform. People don’t exist in a vacuum, and they’re free to work together to collectively bargain for better terms and conditions. It’s not extortion or hostage taking, and even if it were, the company is also hostage taking by having that worker commit their life to fulfilling their obligation to the company by turning up every day and working for that company’s cause, in return for a small share of the revenue generated. I feel that ultimately your metaphors are being slightly mixed by thinking in terms of hostages and extortion. If you think in terms of communities of people and mutuality then the metaphor doesn’t work as well. If Tesla can’t get people from that locale to want to work for them, then they’re not going to be able to operate there. If they break the strike in the name of profits, workers at the city and the power company will see their friends and families made unemployed, and become reluctant to keep the lights on or the street free of debris. You’re dealing with a country and situation that has strong worker rights, and the reason they’re strong is that they keep solidarity with their values in the face of such profit-driven capitalistic behaviour, and there’s a finite resource of people who can be shipped in by Tesla to break this strike even though right now it’s a small issue. Happy workers don’t want to strike and not get paid, and discontent spreads much more rapidly than quiet contentment.
> and use government power to force the company not to actually terminate them
Difficulty: companies, in any legal sense, only exist at the pleasure of the people's government in the first place.
> I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement.
Sure, let's get them totally out....
Difficulty: companies, in any legal sense, only exist at the pleasure of the people's government in the first place.
> I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement.
Sure, let's get them totally out....
You have nuked what may have been a credible comment by comparing the demands of organized labor to extortion.
I was about to post this exact question. Yes, they are often known as scabs, but that's an editorial decision by the submitter because the article doesn't mention them as scabs. Nor do the workers in the article.
I initially put "strikebreakers", then I changed it to "scabs" as more people might be familiar with that term, then I changed it yet again to put both terms to be extra clear.
I wasn't aware that "scabs" is more of a derogatory term than "strikebreakers", but then the idea itself for me is derogatory so maybe I'm not the best person to judge.
FWIW: I changed the title to just have "strikebreakers" in it now.
I wasn't aware that "scabs" is more of a derogatory term than "strikebreakers", but then the idea itself for me is derogatory so maybe I'm not the best person to judge.
FWIW: I changed the title to just have "strikebreakers" in it now.
Personally I’m more familiar with the term scab than strikebreaker. I know scab is a (usually new) worker crossing a picket line, but without context I’d assume a strikebreaker is a “consultant” whose job is to break the picket line itself.
Apparently they mean the same thing though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker
Apparently they mean the same thing though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker
According to Google Translate (and OP's comment), the title should be "The strike escalated on Monday - 'Tesla has brought people here'"
I mean, 'strikebreakers' is also derogatory. 'Scabs' has the advantage that it's relatively unambiguous; 'strikebreakers' usually means scabs, but is also sometimes used to mean consulting companies etc who strategise to break strikes, or, in the bad old days, hired thugs to intimidate workers.
whatever word they use will become derogatory.
This is probably not going to turn out well for Tesla.
As a point of reference, check out the story on how Toys'R'Us, which had a blanket no union-policy in the 90s, faired against the Swedish unions: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/what-canada-can-le...
tl;dr: every single Swedish union had their members refuse to interact with the company, leaving them completely blocked out from the Swedish market until they backed off.
I would not be surprised to see a repeat of that story this time around - the unions really don't want to let this become a precedent.
Best case scenario, Musk gets humiliated again.
As a point of reference, check out the story on how Toys'R'Us, which had a blanket no union-policy in the 90s, faired against the Swedish unions: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/what-canada-can-le...
tl;dr: every single Swedish union had their members refuse to interact with the company, leaving them completely blocked out from the Swedish market until they backed off.
I would not be surprised to see a repeat of that story this time around - the unions really don't want to let this become a precedent.
Best case scenario, Musk gets humiliated again.
I really don't get how a blanket no union-policy is legal? Wouldn't this just deny the workers basic rights (to unionise)? To me it feels like "blanket no minimum wage policy" or "blanket no workplace-safety standards policy". Wether to form a union, and collectively bargain, should be the decision of the workers without any say of the corporations.
It really feels to me like "I am sorry about you trying to establish workplace safety standards but we unfortunately follow a global no workplace-safety standards policy and do not agree to minimum workplace safety standards in other parts of the world".
It really feels to me like "I am sorry about you trying to establish workplace safety standards but we unfortunately follow a global no workplace-safety standards policy and do not agree to minimum workplace safety standards in other parts of the world".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38070432
It's gonna be interesting to get some clarity on this topic.
It's gonna be interesting to get some clarity on this topic.
The source is teslaclubsweden.com[0], not exactly impartial journalism. The comments to that article doesn't agree with it either, here's some top level comments translated to english:
My colleague who is still working says that Tesla is lying today. Half the staff is gone and those who are working are stressing themselves to death. Ingem takes care of the employees. He is going to resign. Mafia methods against those who want to go on strike: giving access cards, keys, etc. Threats and harassment
- Managers have threatened that you will be dismissed if you participate in the conflict. They also have an option program where you get shares for X number of years. They have also threatened to withdraw this if you take part in the conflict as an employee.
[0] https://teslaclubsweden.se/strejken-som-inte-fanns/
My colleague who is still working says that Tesla is lying today. Half the staff is gone and those who are working are stressing themselves to death. Ingem takes care of the employees. He is going to resign. Mafia methods against those who want to go on strike: giving access cards, keys, etc. Threats and harassment
- Managers have threatened that you will be dismissed if you participate in the conflict. They also have an option program where you get shares for X number of years. They have also threatened to withdraw this if you take part in the conflict as an employee.
[0] https://teslaclubsweden.se/strejken-som-inte-fanns/
It's more shocking to me that anyone is surprised by this. When you take an action as aggressive as a strike, what exactly prevents the company from making an aggressive action in response.
A strike is your way of saying, "You need us and we're going to exploit that need to accomplish our goals."
The company bringing in other people who will happily do the work in your place is their way of saying, "I guess we'll see if you're right."
If you play chess, the other player gets moves too.
A strike is your way of saying, "You need us and we're going to exploit that need to accomplish our goals."
The company bringing in other people who will happily do the work in your place is their way of saying, "I guess we'll see if you're right."
If you play chess, the other player gets moves too.
Go to war with European unions and then try to keep doing business as usual. Another union (Transport) has announced that they will stop unloading Tesla cars from ships in Swedish harbors starting November 7, and that's just the first sympathy measure.
IF Metall and Tesla will continue negotiations again tomorrow, so maybe Tesla signs a deal before then.
IF Metall and Tesla will continue negotiations again tomorrow, so maybe Tesla signs a deal before then.
Yes but the players in this case are unionised, same as the workers in all the companies that Tesla need to use in Sweden. It's not a great strategy to break a strike when you depend on other companies, and those other companies then face the risk of strikes from doing business with you.
Furthermore, if your customers are also heavily unionised, then they won't want to buy your products.
Furthermore, if your customers are also heavily unionised, then they won't want to buy your products.
Even in chess, if you slam the table all bets are out.
> When you take an action as aggressive as a strike, what exactly prevents the company from making an aggressive action in response.
In that part of the world, the implicit threat of further escalation from the other side.
In that part of the world, the implicit threat of further escalation from the other side.
> Strike escalated on Monday - "Tesla has brought people here"
> Unknown people in workshop clothes reportedly arrived by taxi on Monday morning at several Tesla workshops, according to picketers around the country.
> - "There are strikebreakers working inside the premises right now," says Carola Andersson, chair of IF Metall in Umeå.
> Around eight o'clock on Monday morning, a taxi arrived at the Tesla car workshop in Umeå, where almost all workers went on strike on Friday. Picketers from the trade union IF Metall noticed four people, dressed in workshop clothes, getting out of the car and entering the workshop.
> - We have at least five strikebreakers here who have come from somewhere else. They are completely new guys who have not been here before. They work with Tesla clothes on inside the workshop. Extensive strikebreaking," he says.
> - "We discovered that overtime was planned for the weekend, so we had picketers there on Saturday and were then told that there was also work on Sunday. We can't know one hundred percent that it was workshop work, but I saw with my own eyes that cars were being driven out of the service doors," says Karl-Henrik Rosberg, IF Metall's ombudsman in Gothenburg.
IF Metall is one of the largest trade unions in Sweden, and the union involved with Tesla right now.