No, it's not a problem when government employees are required to do their job.

Required by who? What is this entity that compels government employees to work? Is it Tesla? If so why? Or is it their citizens, who are by and large supportive of this movement?

> What is this entity that compels government employees to work?

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.

The employer here is the government. That's why they are _government employees_. Last I checked, Sweden wasn't under a dictatorship. So again, if the citizenry largely support the strike, what is this shadow entity that is requiring them work?

Government employees do not work for the nebulous collective will of the population. They work for the government, which is a structured entity.

This distinction is meaningless. The motivations of the "structured entity" is defined by the nebulous collective will of the population. If the elected members of the "structured entity" feel as though the best course of action is for those employees not work, then they don't have to work. I don't know why the needs to Tesla should have higher weight than those of electorate.

If PostNord was a private, shareholder owned company, sure those shareholders may value revenue over social cohesion.

> This distinction is meaningless.

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.

No, the employer here is not the government. Please stop repeating this.

It is illegal to fire employees who are participating in lawful strike.

I would classify striking and not delivering to a specific entity as different things.

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.

Well, your classification truly does not matter in the slightest. This is legal in the Nordics. You know how you make it illegal? By signing the CBA, which if you're already providing better terms, doesn't change anything.

Almost all of the comments on this forum, or any online forum do not matter in the slightest. But perhaps we can use forums to discuss ideas.

Perhaps the world needs fewer Americans that speak so confidently about labour relations in other countries. As usual, 90% of what’s being said on this matter is utterly ill-informed back and forth by Americans that despite their best efforts can’t hide that they’ve bought in to the longstanding American anti-unionist culture.

Discussing ideas and making up hypotheticals are two distinct activities.

> 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.

Sure, use firefighters not putting out certain fires.

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".

> I would classify use of infrastructure as a right. Like if a toll booth operator refused to take money from certain people.

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.

That may be the case, but that's not germane to our discussion, which concerns whether it's bad to fire people who don't do their job. This is a normative discussion, not a descriptive one.

The employees of PostNord are union. They presumably have protection from being fired.

These workers have rights, among them the right to strike.

Why would the government purposely try to restrict their rights, to appeal to a foreign company?