Should a mail worker be able to decide who gets their mail and who don't?

For example as a mail worker should I be able to opt out from delivering mail to politicians whose political statements I find deplorable?

You wouldn't have the right to do that by Swedish law. You only have the right to strike.

Posnord isn't striking. They are doing everything else and except servicing tesla.

It’s the same thing as delivery drivers refusing to cross a picket line. You stand in solidarity with fellow striking workers, because their wellbeing is directly related to your own.

It’s collective action and should be praised in an age where opaque corporations and oligarchs run everything.

Completely independent of if you think it is good or bad, it is clear that that the postnord sympathy action is not a strike or walkout.

What is it then?

Simply denying service.

If Starbucks workers go to work all day and serve every customer but Bob, that's not a strike or walkout. Those terms have real definitions.

That doesn't mean it isn't a union activity.

Seems like if the reason for it is within the law regulating worker action, it is, in fact, union activity, and is, in fact, a strike against Bob, according to some Nordic countries.

Is your sole problem with the fact that people are calling something a strike, and you personally don't think they should, according to your possibly single-country-centric view of the term, or is there a substantive objection?

Postnord isn't striking but workers are.

And then you can strike by selectively refusing to deliver mail for _one_ entity?

I mean, call it whatever you want, but it is a selective strike and a government agency shouldn’t have the right to do that. You either don’t deliver _any_ mail, or you deliver it all.

Btw I can totally empathize with the reason of the autoworkers strike, yet not agree with this.

A key element of a strike is that you don't get paid.

However, it appears the striking mail workers are being paid, even though they are not delivering mail to Tesla.

That in turn gives them a lot of power, because they can keep this strike going for as long as they like with no cost to themselves.

I honestly don't see what so bad about the union action here. Would honestly love to understand what you don't like about this.

You don’t see anything wrong with public workers selectively punishing _one_ entity of their arbitrary choosing?

Unchecked power is bad. Doesn’t matter if it’s a government, a company or a union.

They're not public workers anymore after the liberalisation in the early 2000s. They didn't have the right to strike before that. Because it's a private company, they can strike. Who owns the shares is irrelevant in that context.

From your previous comment, you’re stating you are okay if the union declined to deliver everyone’s mail, which sounds like you’re fine with unchecked power that expresses itself without discrimination.

Correct. I’m not contesting the power to strike, I’m contesting the power to selectively target entities in such strikes.

I don’t know if you thought there was a contradiction there, but I don’t see it.

It doesn’t make sense to consider indiscriminate withholding of services through a strike not “unchecked power,” while selecting specific targets (which is far less disruptive to the market as a whole) as such.

It’s also not an arbitrary choice. It’s a business that’s clearly in dispute with another union, that this union has decided to intervene on behalf of. It’s not like they’re striking against a company that was just minding its own business.

Perhaps there can be labor relations boards and anti-discrimination regulation and such to prevent abuse of selective striking, but this is obviously a situation where everyone is a player and knows what game they’re playing.

There’s nothing arbitrary about it. A worker can’t just declare a strike, that’s illegal. The company the postal company works for, also agreed to these terms.

They've laid it out pretty well. A strike is downing tools and not showing up to work. Not doing your work, but neglecting certain customers.

…according to you:) This is a so called sympathy strike: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action

The only example of this exact thing in there is...the exact thing against Tesla we're talking about. Everything else is striking against a related company to one's employer's company.

Well, its wikipedia. Im not sure what you are arguing against. Sympathy strikes are guaranteed by the Swedish constitution.

> Well, its wikipedia

What does that mean?

Wikipedia still has some ways to go when it comes to the history of various smaller countries, I guess. And in even in English it has some gaps.

Yes, but they're the ones citing it. I don't understand their response in light of that.

Now you made me read the link. :-D

It defines the concept pretty well, which is somewhat valuable, but has few citations, which is unfortunate.

The only clear citation of this definition of "sympathy strikes" is... the current Tesla issue :)

Yes.

* and the strike must be lawful, to strike. You couldn’t arbitrarily strike and stop delivering mail to Trump for example.

Sorry if I am obtuse, but what's the difference between Trump and a specific company? That one is a legal entity?

If the plates were to be delivered not to Tesla, but to an individual, then they wouldn't be allowed not to deliver them?

I probably shouldn't have complicated things by mentioning an individual, I really don't know if that could even be possible. Imagine I said Republican Party.

The key thing is that for a strike to be declared it has to be called for by the union, it would be unprecedented to call a strike for political action against a party.

>it would be unprecedented

And is there a precedent for what's happening now?

You'd have to a) convince a majority of your coworkers, and b) have some associated, relevant labor demand. A strike isn't just "I don't want to do this."

It is not a question of what is allowed. The company delivering parcels must fulfill their contracts, but the contracts clearly have stipulations for force majeure. Which a strike is, by the very definition.

What is not clear here? Sweden has very few strikes, but this is a textbook example of one. The postal worker's union have called for their members to refuse to carry out a specific work. This is well within their rights to do. The union calls for this as part of a collective action for their fellow workers.

The company delivering the parcels could call for their employer's union to lock out the workers on strike. But why would they want to escalate the conflict? They too prefer their collective bargaining agreements respected. And they are clearly not in violation of any of their contracts as this is a legal strike.

There are plenty of gray areas within worker's rights, but this is as simple as it could be.

Absolutely not! But that isn't what is happening here.

Compare and contrast the reception Swedish mail workers are getting for their behavior, versus Kim Davis, who refused to issue an otherwise non-problematic marriage license(which was part of her job).

Even Davis was ultimately allowed to refuse to issue licenses personally; she just couldn't forbid the deputy clerks from doing it (only one of whom, her son, also refused). She also had an elected position with an oath of office, not an employment contract.

Actually, the judge ordered that the deputy clerks must issue the marriage licenses(save for her son), unless they wanted to be held in contempt of court.

I'm not sure how the path matters much. It contains language along the lines of "I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of...."

I'm imagining having religious qualms about certain behaviors would fall under "best of my abilities"

> For example as a mail worker should I be able to opt out from delivering mail to politicians whose political statements I find deplorable?

Ironically, I think this would be illegal in Sweden but might be legal in the US under Title VII exemptions.

I find it insane that the workers of the state-owned postal office can decide what mail to deliver based on their personal views.

What's next, the mass transit drivers refusing to stop near Tesla's offices? Court workers refusing to accept Tesla's lawsuits? Firemen refusing to put out fire on Tesla's properties?

It’s a strike. How could the workers be prohibited from deciding whether to strike?

By living and working in the U.S.. Most commenters here are wrongly assuming workers in Sweden have as little rights as they do, and probably just as exploited as well.

Well, you are the one wrongly assuming. I am from Slovakia, and we have strong labour laws and strikes all the time.

The thing is that government services must be provided to everyone or (if enough people are on strike) not at all.

I'm not sure when Slovakia entered the chat, but I was responding to the parent's question of how could the workers (in Sweden) be prohibited from deciding whether to strike, and was trying to make a point that US commenters go by US laws which do not apply here.

You were replying to a user who asked me a question and you were explaining my views to them…

The Swedish model makes it so that we rarely have large strikes, despite having strong unions, as typically companies work together with the unions rather than against the unions.

In a way the Swedish model has found an equilibrium between company powers and workers right that has been very productive.

Until an ignorant American enters the market and think he knows better than everyone else

Prohibited is easy. Just pass a law making it illegal for workers in that agency to strike, or to advocate, promote, discuss, etc., potential strikes (that may conflict with existing law, be politically difficult, etc., but the mechanism is clear.)

Prevented, though, is harder. Prohibitions aren't always effective prevention.

There are no agency workers who are participating in any strikes? Unlike the US we have a privatized postal service and the old postal service is now merged with the danish postal service and co-owned between the Swedish and Danish states and competing on an open market with other postal services.

Not everyone has state postal services like in the US

Are they on strike? I thought they were just refusing to provide services to single customer.

That would be a sympathy strike.

_Sympathy strikes_ only make sense when directed towards the target of the original strike.

If all sympathy strikes were to be total walkouts then it would result in a general strike and that doesn’t target any specific party and thus doesn’t put pressure on them

I would expect them to stop working at all instead of de facto stealing parcels belonging to a single customer.

They can't decide based on personal views. That is illegal. It's only legal during a strike.

I think the next one will be payment processing not being completed for Tesla. Mass transit drivers could do that. Court & Firemen must guarantee a minimum level of service on their strikes, so that’s unlikely.

I don’t know what I think, it’s not a normal situation in my country. Businesses sign the union agreement, because it is a collaborative process between the union and the employer. The whole system is predicated on good faith. Tesla is openly being adversarial and the union has now after years said enough, and declared a legal strike. Strikes are usually resolved long before this stage. Unions in Denmark and Norway don’t often go on sympathy strikes for Swedish unions.

In my opinion, screw the Musk boy. There are other EV manufacturers.

Firemen and police are unlikely to strike, but expect to see them to start losing bank service, office services, and trash services next. Then, expect neighboring countries to start doing the same.

Sweden has few strikes. In fact, hardly any. Worker's rights are generally by contract rather than by law. When the unions move in unison like this, they come prepared and expect to win.

It is an existential issue for them, in a literal sense. Should they lose, laws will be rewritten and trade agreements will have to be renegotiated.