Both, unlike in the US the Swedish post office is privatized and handled by multiple companies, eg Citymail also offers postal services.

PostNord has won the tender with the Swedish transport authority though and as such is the one they should use.

PostNord is the result of the merger between the privatized (but state owned) Swedish and Danish postal services.

But also – union rights and postal rights needs to be weighed against each other here – both are important

I am surprised that in this case Swedes value individual rights over their duty to the public.

Collective rights against an individual company*

Sweden protects the rights of workers

Tesla is not the public.

Are companies excluded from your idea of the public or just Tesla? I'm genuinely curious. I couldn't care less about Tesla in this case, I am just trying to understand how people are okay with civil servants picking and choosing who they render services to.

That isn’t what’s happening here, it’s unions striking. Employees can’t just do this randomly, it has to be part of an organised strike which is fairly rare. Once the strikes in place the private employees (not civil servants) who belong to unions will follow recommendations of actions.

They are not civil servants. They are employees of PostNord, which is a company owned by the government but the employees have the same rights as any other employee: to organise themselves. They've organised on a sympathy strike against Tesla, to boycott doing their work that would have Tesla as a customer in sympathy with IF Metall's strike.

All of that is completely legal and acceptable. Employees of a company (PostNord) are joining together with employees from another company to fight against a company trying to avoid the rules on how the labour market works here.

There's no "civil servant" in play. Everyone is a worker.

Accept that it's a different culture, maybe not better or worse than yours but different. Here the labour market is a free market, the government doesn't regulate much, and it's up to negotiations directly between the participants of the market: employers and employees. For that a lot of companies agree under a Collective Bargaining Agreement the minimum bar expected for employers to respect when contracting employees. These CBAs complement the bare minimum legislation around the labour market from government, they are a cornerstone of almost all labour relationship instead of heavy government regulations.

Those are the rules of the game, Tesla is trying to break them, and worse, they brought scabs to break through the strike, which is really not tolerated in this culture. Because of that they have the sympathy of workers from other industries that Tesla relies on, since Tesla is trying to break the social contract of the labour market, other workers feel that is infringing on their own rights since it will create a precedent for other companies to also ignore the rules of the game.

This is what is in play, I hope you understand it's not your culture, it's ok to be ignorant about it but I expect smart people to also be able to learn a different perspective instead of keeping spouting their ignorance.

Their "duty to the public" being to deliver license plates to Tesla? Really?

Their duty is to deliver mail is it not? Should mail carriers refuse to deliver political flyers because they disagree with the message??

It's not just random postal workers doing it though, it's union members doing it as part of a sympathy strike. And surely every workers "duty" is their job, so then no striking should be allowed? Or should only complete strikes be allowed?

Union members should be allowed to go on strike, complete or partial as far as I'm concerned.

They are not refusing based on content, they are refusing based on recipient – two very different things.

It just so happens that license plates are one of the things that gets blocked. Not because they are license plates but because Tesla is the receiver.

Political flyers seem like something very different to license plates. The court might decide differently under different circumstances.

Has there been a strike against a political party in Nordic union history?

They are the national postal service, successor to the old Posten AB (which just means “The Post, Ltd”), and before that Postverket (“The Post Agency”).

There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).

What I find strange is that when a subset of employees strike, PostNord doesn't feel obligated to deliver at all, even though they have employees that are not part of the union and are not covered by the strike. This while PostNord has legal obligations to deliver mail.

Consider a "model factory" where 60 % of employees are union members. A strike is initiated and those 60% go on strike. It is reasonable to expect that production decreases with about 60%. In the PostNord case, the union member relationship is about on that level, and the registration plates probably fit in a small van. Still PostNord cannot see a way to meet their obligations even though there are plenty of employees that can deliver. If a non-union employee refuses, then their strike strike is wild and illegal.

I think the courts will see this, but it will take a while.

Striking is a constitutionally protected right in Sweden. The belief of PostNord is that the right of their employees to strike weighs higher than PostNord's obligation to deliver mail.

Not that simple. RF states striking as a protected right for an association of employees. It is not an individually protected right.

"Stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden [K2]14 § En förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och en förening av arbetsgivare har rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder på arbetsmarknaden, om inte annat följer av lag eller avtal. "

> Not that simple.

It is. Postnord even sent a press release stating the same:

> "PostNord's position in a conflict that we are basically outside of, has been that the right to strike is constitutionally protected and therefore applies over the distribution obligation in the Postal Act," the company writes in a press release. [1]

1: https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/postnord-slar-tillbaka-mot-tesla-i...

Which is what it is in this case, a union which strikes

Question on Swedish law: Can PostNord even know who is a union member and who is not? Are only union members allowed to strike?

On the second question - my understanding is that non-union associated employees do not have a protected right to strike, as individual employeees. You can't just refuse work and say "I strike!" At least their rights are weaker. Much of Swedish labor laws are about associations of employees (=unions) and associations of employers. As an individual, your rights are not the same. We will see what the courts say in the end but this distinction is not so well known, and it often comes as a surprise for non-unionized members when a company is downsizing.

I'm curious as to whether an "association" legally implies those who have membership in a union, or more generally covers coordinated action between union members and non-members, or even coordinated action between non-members alone.

It's the other way around. Unionized workers have traded away their right to strike without union support.

Anyone can strike, it is a basic right, but good luck not getting paid. That salary might have been handy for the legal representation after being fired too.

No PostNord doesn't know and cannot ask.

Anyone can strike. Being part of the union and contributing to it guarantee you are being paid (by the union) while on strike.

You seem to be advocating that PostNord bring in strike breakers to do the jobs of the people at strike?

That would be an insane way to escalate the conflict to a level which would bring down the entire force of all the unions combined. They are a huge employer and to even bring up the idea would be regarded infinitely more serious than whatever tiny Tesla is doing.

This is a conflict that PostNord has zero desire to be part of. Their employees are on a perfectly legal strike, they will handle this by the book. All their contracts with their customers already stipulates exactly what can be expected in a force majeure situation such as this, and their union is careful not to disrupt their business more than necessary as that is in their best interest.

> There is nothing strange about the notion of a postal strike, that's why the US has the USPS to begin with (its predecessor's employees went on strike and brought the US federal govt to its knees).

Can the USPS outright refuse to deliver all valid and legally paid for mail from a sender? I don't think so but can be corrected.

No, as most USPS employees are considered "quasi-federal" employees and US law prohibits any federal employees from striking. They can protest and have some of the usual Union protections but striking can lead to them being fired, fined, or imprisoned.

As well, there are specific regulations in place for USPS workers to deliver and process all mail (barring certain safety and health issues with the package or delivery).

The USPS has a "universal service obligation", so no. The US postal strike of 1970 (which I hadn't heard of before) was apparently illegal, but when a huge number of people perform an illegal act it's often not in the government interest to fire them, but to instead negotiate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_postal_strike_of...

: President Nixon appeared on national television and ordered the employees back to work, but his address only stiffened the resolve of the existing strikers and angered workers in another 671 locations in other cities into walking out as well. Workers in other government agencies also announced they would strike if Nixon pursued legal action against the postal employees.[7]

It's the people who are on strike, not the company. Are people where you live not allowed to go on strike?

So you are okay with, say, the individuals of a fire department deciding not to put out a fire because they don't like someone? This is a public service we are talking about here.

Should individuals be forced to perform their duties against their wills?

That's what the money is for. They signed up to do a job and they are paid to do it. If they don't want to do the job they are free to quit anytime.

It is frowned upon to selectively do parts of your job when people are relying on you.

They are also free to strike.

If you are rendering a public service, absolutely. Unless doctors can just start letting patients die on their tables because they don't like their patient's politics.

What's wrong with a doctor refusing to treat a patient they don't like?

If you got in a car accident, you're okay with the ambulance just driving off because they don't like your bumper stickers?

Arbitrary discrimination can’t be compared to organized union strikes?

Why is one arbitrary and the other not? I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Because it is based on pre-stated principles, which the other party is capable of fulfilling. This makes it non-arbitrary.

I don't understand how my statement of firemen refusing to put out a fire because they didn't like the person is arbitrary. If they publicly stated they do not like the person because of their politics and will refuse to put out fires for anyone supporting that party does that make it okay to not put out a fire on their house?

Not liking someone is arbitrary and subjective

Swedish unions are not subjecting Tesla to strikes because they dislike Tesla or Musk, they are doing it to ensure they sign a collective bargain

It doesn't make it okay, but yes, it does make it non-arbitrary. But what VoxPelli wrote regarding your original statement.

And important to note as well: Swedish firefighters are not refusing to put out fires at Tesla workshops

Because it relates to a labor dispute?

Imagine a country where there is a law against private companies delivering mail to your mailbox?

Luckily, I think such Soviet-type laws are a thing of the past? No?

Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes