When you zoom out and look at the actors involved, this isn't all that strange. This is a strike - if the citizens of a country don't want to do business with a certain entity isn't that how the government, ideally, should work? Citizens should be able to demand whatever the hell they wanted; otherwise who does the government work for?
It's absolutely bizarre to claim that self-determining nation has too much power against a foreign corporation.
So please consider that other models are possible that are cooperative not antagonistic.
It's fairly constrained. They have leverage because the law gives Postnord a monopoly on delivering license plates.
If they abuse that narrow power, it's trivial to take it away without triggering any broader impacts. The fact that this is outside the political Overton window should say something about Tesla's public support.
Is that a law or an exclusive contract between the government and PostNord, given after bidding and a tender process as they call it in Europe and Asian countries?
I think it's a contract, and contracts have exclusions in cases of forces majeures like strikes. Since the Transport Agency is required by law to provide plates for properly registered cars, I would think they would be required to let Tesla pick them up, or use a different carrier for Tesla plates.
There is an exclusive contract between the Swedish state and the postal company. There is also a contract that forbids the plate manufacturer from sending plates by any other means than post.
Transportstyrelsen does not agree that the current strike counts as a force majeure. This is (essentially) what the court case is about. Lower court agreed with you and allowed them to pick up plates themselves but the appeal court repelled that decision earlier today.
That's interesting, I wonder what their reasoning is, I thought strikes were included in the definition of force majeure in the law.
> There is an exclusive contract between the Swedish state and the postal company. There is also a contract that forbids the plate manufacturer from sending plates by any other means than post.
Isn't there a law that states the transport agency must provide lawfully registered plates? Usually laws trump contracts.
I think it’s obvious that Tesla will be allowed to get their plates sooner or later, and Transportstyrelsen does not seem to be of the view that they shouldn’t be. They are more concerned about the practicality and legality of letting them pick up the plates from the factory.
Tesla can't call force majeure on a contract it isn't party to. If the Swedish government wanted to break the strike, it can--trivially. There is simply zero political will to do so.
Yet Scandinavian workers seem to be able to join in on disputes they aren't party to.
Yes, there is a difference between association and a legal contract. (As well as not doing something versus forcing someone to.)
> If the Swedish government wanted to break the strike, it can--trivially. There is simply zero political will to do so.
That won't be breaking the strike if plates are allowed to be picked up. If the government does not want to follow Swedish law and their duties, then the courts should force it to do so.
I don’t know Swedish law. But this certainly isn’t the case in America.
My Visa card has a clause that the bank isn't liable if it stops working due to industrial action.
What contract is Tesla party to that they would invoke this on? OP suggested Transport Agency invoking force majeure, which makes sense.
> has a clause that the bank isn't liable if it stops working due to industrial action
Who is suggesting liability for Tesla?
There's also nothing in the law that states that plates have to be mailed and cannot be picked up, that's a operational decision by the Transport Agency. It's required by law to provide plates so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.
The government isn't doing this, workers are.
Wouldn't it be more problematic if the government stepped in and forced the hand against their workers, and in favour of a private company like Tesla?
Typically the entity that compels employees to to their job (or be fired) is their employer. That is, in fact, the defining relationship between employees and employers.
If PostNord was a private, shareholder owned company, sure those shareholders may value revenue over social cohesion.
Only if you subscribe to the most naive grade-school model of democracy. A government isn't actually the will of the people made manifest; it's an organization made up of people, processes, and constraints. Just like a corporation isn't actually the will of the shareholders made manifest.
> The motivations of the "structured entity" is defined by the nebulous collective will of the population.
Once again, this is an absurdly naive view of how governments function. There is a voting mechanism in place which usually does a sort of OK job of keeping the government's behavior in line with the population's preferences, but this breaks down all the time and even in equilibrium doesn't work very well.
I suggest reading Bueno de Mesquita's _The Logic of Political Survival_ if you're interested in developing a realistic model for how government behavior emerges.
The latter is more easily able to be used for extortion.
Similar to cops deciding not to police a region populated by a certain tribe. Or, in the same vein, over policing a certain region/tribe.
You should have gone with firefighters.
Cops famously never act in solidarity with other workers. In fact, they actively work against workers' rights.
Cops "over policing", or more accurately, "targeting", most certainly violates certain fundamental rights. A mailman not delivering packages to some company offices does not.
I would classify use of infrastructure as a right. Like if a toll booth operator refused to take money from certain people.
Also, in this case, it sounds like the workers are also not allowing anyone else to deliver the packages, so it is not just "a mailman not delivering packages to some company offices".
We aren't talking about people here. Corporations don't have that kind of consideration in most of Europe.
Call it a "boycott". It's perfectly legal and obviously not comparable to cops targeting people in the slightest.
Why would the government purposely try to restrict their rights, to appeal to a foreign company?
That's how all business works.
In Sweden the unions own the government. Nordic countries can not be compared to modern republics such as the USA. There is little separation of powers.
The interests of the people and the interests of the union don't overlap much.
Well, yes. Although the world is a lot more complicated than left vs right, the socialist parties have generally been the largest parties in Nordic countries, and the "conservative" parties do not rock the boat too much when they're in power. Because the voters wouldn't accept that.
> compared to the USA
It's a matter of taste and of values, but directly comparing these very different societies doesn't work well.
The unions "own" the government in the extent that they where tightly connected to the Socialist Democratic party that ruled Sweden for decades and are responsible for much of today's legislation. If you were a member of a union, they would on your behalf sign you up as a member of the Socialist Democratic party, until 1991.
So the unions are intertwined with the government in Nordic countries to an extent that is very unfamiliar to peopler from some other countries.
Another example is the government church in all the nordic countries, which is not much talked about, but indeed strange to people from other backgrounds.
So in other words the unions don't own the government so much as they own the voters (or is it the other way around)? I'd call a decision that voters agree on democracy.
> The unions "own" the government in the extent that they where tightly connected to the Socialist Democratic party that ruled Sweden for decades and are responsible for much of today's legislation. If you were a member of a union, they would on your behalf sign you up as a member of the Socialist Democratic party, until 1991.
Another explanation could be that both sides of the political spectrum agrees and thinks that the power re: labor decisions such as this _should_ lie with the unions, regardless of left/right lean. Even the "right" parties in Sweden are pro unions.
> Another example is the government church in all the nordic countries, which is not much talked about, but indeed strange to people from other backgrounds.
Huh? This hasn't been the case on paper since the year 2000 in Sweden, but in practice far longer than that. The church might still be called "Church of Sweden", but it has nothing to do with the government.
Yes, that's a good way to put it. Although memberships are rapidly decreasing in later years. The reasons for that can be saved for another discussion.
> Another explanation could be that both sides of the political spectrum agrees and thinks that the power re: labor decisions such as this _should_ lie with the unions, regardless of left/right lean. Even the "right" parties in Sweden are pro unions.
There really isn't any "both sides" of the political spectrum in Nordic countries when it comes to labour. The way the "right wing" parties can get elected at all is to say "We promise we're not going to do things differently than the left wing, but we'll give you a $100 more per year in tax deductions".
> Huh? This hasn't been the case on paper since the year 2000 in Sweden, but in practice far longer than that. The church might still be called "Church of Sweden", but it has nothing to do with the government.
It is still the case in Finland, Norway and Denmark. These countries have a government church, that performs government functions, and levies taxes to the church from your salary. You still have to fill in a form if you want to exit the government church. The year 2000 is not so far away, compared to when other nations separated church and state.
And AFAIK the former state church of Sweden (along with neighbouring countries) is still controlled by secular political parties, whose candidates are elected by church members. The largest church party by a huge margin being the Socialist Democrat party.
That's exactly my point. I think we're in general agreement about the state of things, but perhaps not in the reasons behind it. I see a rational consensus and belief in a system. I don't believe that these parties pretend something simply to gain votes, and then, after gaining power, do nothing to further this alleged political agenda.
> It is still the case in Finland, Norway and Denmark. These countries have a government church, that performs government functions, and levies taxes to the church from your salary. You still have to fill in a form if you want to exit the government church.
The church tax still exists in Sweden, and is opt-out in a similar way as you describe for the other Nordic countries. The tax is used for things like church weddings, burial costs, etc. I agree that this is a little strange, but the fact of the matter is that this system (at least in Sweden) doesn't apply only to the Church of Sweden. If you are a member of another religious communities, the fee can instead go to this entity. (In Swedish: https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/...)
> The year 2000 is not so far away, compared to when other nations separated church and state.
Be that as it may, the time span wasn't really part of the initial discussion. And people living day-to-day up here knows that the church has little to no say in anything in society. It has been like that for a long time. I think if anything people coming from elsewhere might be surprised how secular Swedish people/Scandinavians are. I don't think anyone that moved here (or even grows up here) would ever think about the fact that there was a "state church" not even 25 years ago.
Private workers for a private company exercising their union protected rights.
I thought Americans loved private companies? But apparently not when it’s a postal service and it affects a treasure like Tesla?
But even then the court wasn't forcing them to deliver mail, just allowing that mail to be picked up. And now that's blocked?
I just don't understand how one entity can have this much power, in this case they essentially are the government they could demand whatever the hell they wanted. Your choice is to leave the country or agree to the demands of the postal service.
People hate tesla and Musk right now so they'll by and large support this, but eventually the post office will realize how much power they weild and use it for some other gain.
And how is this not similar to the post office choosing not to deliver tax documents, forcing an entity to eventually become delinquent? The government agency responsible for sending license plates only uses the government owned mail provider (makes sense) but that provider can pick and choose who it delivers mail to?