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.