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]