Well this mob rule has ensured some of the best working conditions in the world for the Nordic countries. While having very flexible industries, with less labor conflicts than most countries. Why is it okay for an individual to get what is theirs, but not a collective?

Having $200k federal savings per person due to oil extraction also helps.

That’s Norway, don’t involve the rest of us

classic HN. business can do whatever it wants with impunity but god forbid people actually have any equal power.

did you know the nordic countries are among the happiest and have some of the strongest social benefits in the world while still being wealthy?

> did you know the nordic countries are among the happiest and have some of the strongest social benefits in the world while still being wealthy?

I do wonder how much of this is due to cultural homogeneity and the benefits that follow. Will this remain the case in the presence of a larger proportion of immigrants? I don't think its a fair comparison, when people contrast Nordic countries with the US.

You're wrong about the immigration part. They now have to use the army to fight the gangs in Sweden.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66964723

Exactly. As soon as immigration increased, crime and disorder increased. It's easy to maintain utopia when everyone looks and behaves exactly like you.

The difference between this being done legitimately and illegitimately is not one I can put into words[0], but I would note that there are ways this can be legitimate in any society — the police, in a democracy (sometimes described as fancy mob rule), where the protection money is normally called "taxes" — and that quite a lot of countries are stopping people from doing business with Russia right now as part of a protest against what they're doing in Ukraine.

Unions have whatever powers they've been allowed to have by the country they operate in, just as do corporations and police forces.

[0] Where you put the line between balancing the powers of unions vs. corporations is one of the major political dividing lines for the last 175 years, I'm not going to do it justice.

Unions are mob rule in that sense. If you want to work and the union doesn't want you to, you obey your union boss. Wherever you put power, it will sometimes be abused, even if it's worth it overall for you.

In Sweden there is no requirement to be in a union to work at a company with union agreement. A company cannot require (or forbid) union membership of employees. Also a union cannot require that you are member to be covered by their collective bargaining agreement.

How are the unions funded? In the US it's a slice of the member's pay which means that even if you aren't in the union you still pay that - if the union instead negotiated its payment direct from the company I think a lot of anti-union complaints would go away.

If you join there's a monthly fee. You can pay a little extra and get additional unemployment payments if you get laid off.

Why would you still pay it even if you aren't in the union, if it's a slice of members' pay?

Because that's the agreement many of the unions have with the company - in a "union shop" you have to pay dues, even if you're not a member of the union. So of course everyone joins the union.

I think the post you're replying to didn't say it's good or bad, they merely reported some facts about unions in Sweden (not sure they're if accurate or not, but I have no specific reason to doubt them).

The alternative to this “mob rule” is government mandated minimum wage. And, ehm, I mean, have you seen what the government will do to get their way? They stop businesses and harass people, and then some.