- cross-posted to:
- antiwork@lemmy.ml
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- antiwork@lemmy.ml
- europe@feddit.de
Elon Musk has decried a wave of “insane” strikes focused on Tesla workshops in Sweden, as workers target the US electric car manufacturer in a strike calling for collective bargaining rights.
In what has been portrayed as the largest fight in decades to save Sweden’s union model from global labour practices, the powerful trade union IF Metall has been leading a strike across eight Tesla workplaces in Sweden for five weeks.
It is the first time workers for the US carmaker have gone on strike and on Thursday, Musk, the tech billionaire and chief executive of Tesla, made his feelings clear, writing on X, formerly Twitter: “This is insane.”
“Waaaah my precious market forces are working against me.”
They’ve seen 50-100% payrises in many cases - unions are important.
Unions that are bottom up organizations are important, Unions that are beholden to the political class are just a way to control us.
Sure, I guess.
Eating vegetables is good too - rotten vegetables are bad to eat though.
Unions consisting entirely of Vampires and other human-flesh/blood consuming monsters of myth and legend are also bad.
Because of the murders and the consuming of human flesh and blood.
You forgot to mention also the mess that needs to be cleaned up.
Remember how the railroad workers trid to strike & congress shut them down? Unions in America are not like Unions in Europe.
I’ll put my response aside and ask - What’s your point? Don’t unionise?
Wildcat unions > corporatist unions
I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other (though I think your binary framing of wildcat Vs corporatist is a little dishonest), but looking at the current Tesla dispute in Sweden, the effect is massive because it’s a cohesive, multi-sector strike. Seems like that’s a pretty effective case of “us” controlling “them”, no?
Yeah that the point the Swedish unions aren’t working in a framework that’s designed to give the political establishment control over the unions. If our ability to legally protest political matters could be vetoed by the people in power what effect do you think it would have on likelihood of effecting change through protect?
That’s not a wildcat union, and those strikes were backed by Swedish courts - while I don’t strongly disagree with your point (it varies based on the applicable legislative landscape for one), this example proves the opposite of your point if anything.
Your binary framing is bad enough that it’s working against you, and your comprehension of the terms you’re using doesn’t help. Your underlying ideas aren’t terrible, but they are lacking nuance (see the binary framing) that means they only work in certain contexts such as a hostile legislative environment - not real world examples like Sweden.
The government is the bit that is different. The union is the same. They were just threatened more effectively.
Removed by mod
Sometimes it’s not about the truth of the statement, but how it’s attempting to shape a certain narrative, that gets the vote, up or down.
This is exactly why I downvoted it. It’s a comment meant to disparage unions without appropriate context, a classic attack by bad faith actors.
Yep. Scaring people with corruption is usually the number one way of trying to discourage people for wanting unions.
And it’s funny that no other form of governance that can be susceptible to corruption is ever discussed in a discussion about unions.