Buy ports, buy ships, buy trucks, buy electricians, buy a brand new postal service etc.

The $26 B cash on hand should be used somewhere, instead of usual executive package and share buyback.

Yup, squashing worker rights for corporations everywhere sounds like a good way of spending $26B.

> Edit:- If my comment is not as per HN guidelines, I am willing to delete it.

Why don't you try to read the guidelines before posting, if you think you might be breaking some guideline?

But no, you're getting downvoted not because of breaking the rules, but because of the horrible opinion and lack of care of the common worker.

So, assuming you're serious... Eh?

Tesla shareholder meeting, 2024. "We're going to spend 26 billion dollars on attempting to build a parallel economy in Sweden." ".... Why?" "Oh, spite, mostly."

How do you think that would go over?

Spending 0 dollars on just fucking signing the contract like literally everyone else in the country, or several billions trying to construct a parallel society in Sweden. This parallel society would of course have just as much right to strike as the current one, given that the right to strike is constitutionally protected in Sweden.

I guess it would be an effective way of dethroning Elon from Tesla, so I agree - let's go ahead and do it.

The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.

> The IF Metall union is striking because they just want to get their cut.

What sort of people do you think IF Metall is made up of? It's the second largest union in Sweden, the people who are a part of the union are also workers at Tesla and other companies. It's not made up of "career-unionists" if that's what you thought.

Despite what HN seems to think, these unions are bullies and completely unnecessary middle men.

How much experience do you have with Swedish unions specifically? And with Swedish industry in general?

Judging by your comments, your experience seems to come from reading US news, is that close to the truth?

For example, the percentage of your salary for membership is not a static one, it varies. And even so, it has a max amount (around 60USD last time I checked). Did you account for that when doing your calculations?

It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.

Unions don't do solidarity strikes across the entire Nordics without having the support of the people they're trying to help.

> It is people working elsewhere -- or rather, the management of the labour unions that organize those other people.

The people you call "the management of the labour unions" are workers just like the rest. Again, they are not "career-unionists", they are workers who care about worker rights, just like all the other people at the other unions joining the strike.

How do you know this though? Union membership is anonymous. You have no reason to tell your employer you're a member. If there's a strike all employees can legally take part to help stop identification of members. Every member of Tesla could be a union member saying they aren't to avoid pushback by Tesla. That's just as likely as none of them being a member.

IF Metall are driving these negotiations on behalf of their members working at Tesla - had they not shown any interest, IF Metall would not have bothered.

[0] https://twitter.com/NicklasNilsso14/status/17255571334358634...

You're literally quoting a letter from Tesla, this has no credibility whatsoever.

PostNord employees could not just decide to stop sending parcels to a company without it being part of a directed strike.

Interestingly that's not quite what's happening either. The workers in question are not in a union. IF Metall is the union being supported, and merely wants to represent them (more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market).

Everyone is just nuts here. Tesla needs to just cut a deal here, but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption, all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything is just batshit.

Tesla complies with the country's laws, no?

Expecting to run a company against the norms in a culture that so heavily leans on norms is bound to create conflict, which is what we're seeing here.

A much better way is to have the parties play nice with each other, build trust, and negotiate as equals. This allows for much better and more detailed agreements, for quicker reactions if market conditions changes, and for more flexibility within each economic sector. The fact that the Nordic countries operate in such a way no doubt contributes to these countries both having great standards of living, and being among the best in the world to start and run businesses in.

Tesla doesn't play nice. They don't build trust, and they don't try to negotiate as equals.

True, it is not illegal. It doesn't need to be. We have other ways to keep hostile actors from misbehaving.

Strikes are one of those ways.

It has been like this in Sweden since 1938 (if I remember correctly), and it is unlikely that any American company will be allowed to come in and change that order. I think the last one that tried and failed was Amazon, and before that Toys R Us.

This system has worked well for a hundred years with Sweden ranking highly across most metrics for work satisfaction, happiness, etc... however every now and then an American company comes over and tries to challenge it. These companies get sympathy striked into the ground, sign a collective agreement, and live happily ever after.

This was an interesting experience for me during COVID, where lots of other countries put lots of rules/laws in place, while Sweden just had "recommendations" (and lax ones at that). The way I understood it, it would have been even incredibly difficult/legally impossible for the government to impose some of the same restrictions as in other countries.

It's actually fascinating how well the Swedish society functions without these laws.

Then again, so are the unions.

Tesla just chose the most expensive way possible to solve the matter. That's well within their rights, of course.

I had no idea that unions could operate like this. I thought unions were tools to gain workers leverage against their employers, which I obviously support. I find this cartel action repulsive and I don't see how it could be done here in the US without violating anti trust.

Out of interest, how are the unions trying to cut in? And what exactly are they "cutting in"?

My God, so many people have been taught to have themselves. It's just sad at this point.

Walmart famously crashed and burned in Germany, for example, because they treated the German unions like uppity communists.

For many reasons, the US has a model which is not cooperative but built on bitter enmity. This is repeated throughout the nation with e.g. cars vs bikes.

We do not have that here. This is Musk bringing all his prejudice to a bunch of countries he doesn't understand the norms and culture of.

> Exactly. This is about our entire model under threat. And it will be Tesla's Afghanistan. Membership in unions is the norm in Sweden.

Unionization rates differ significantly across European countries. While the unionization rate in the Sweden is quite high at 65.2% (as of 2019), it is much lower in Germany at 16.3% and even lower in France at 8.9%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356735/labor-unions-mos...

As for strikes in particular: France doesn't require a union vote to engage in a strike to do so with far-reaching protections (2 employees fighting for an employment-related change seem to suffice from my cursory reading), so the French can strike without needing to be unionized. And boy, do they strike...

The Swedish almost never go on strikes, with very few exceptions.

But... Tesla never even got that far. They just hired some people who apparently wanted the jobs? No one got fired or threatened, no bribes are alleged. It really seems like IF Metall fired first, no?

I'm puzzled. Do you think when he flew in workers from other countries that this was not a strikebreaking tactic or are you saying that this did not happen?

This is pretty much a school book example how labor conflicts go.

The next steps of the conflict are also expected and known well in advance. The only problem is that nobody seems to be willing to inform their higher ups at Tesla what is happening.

> but at the same time this kind of escalation, with all this economic disruption

What is the economic disruption? There's no "economic disruption" because of Tesla in Sweden, it's negligible for the overall Swedish economy, stop that...

Tesla fucked around, now it's finding out.

Some members of the Tesla servicing stations are members of a union but the numbers aren't public because an employer cannot ask who is in a union

> IF Metall is the union being supported and merely wants to represent them

Yes, IF Metall is the largest union for that type of work in Sweden. They do represent some employees.

> more correctly, they don't want a non-union shop operating in their market

Correct, no-one wants this because the entire labour system is built around collective agreements. Allowing companies to break these rules is bad.

> Tesla needs to just cut a deal here

Yep, or leave! Both works well, the only option that's not viable is to be allowed to break the Nordic/Swedish working model

> all for the "benefit" of 160 (or whatever) unrepresented workers

Some are represented

> who aren't even part of the story and don't seem to be asking for union representation or higher wages or anything

Again, Unions represent employees and all members of the company including non-union members can strike because it's illegal to ask or identify who is or isn't in a Union. Which is why this number of non-Union members is mostly made up rubbish by pro-Tesla sites, the number is unknown.

https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/zEpyow/arbeiderpartiet-hasteinn... (in Norwegian).

This was decided by Seko's union board, the union that covers most PostNord and other delivery companies employees

> PostNord says it can't force it's workers to do something

It is illegal to prevent a strike, yes

> So if it's not the workers decision it's PostNord's decision and that is very different

It's the unions decision

https://www-seko-se.translate.goog/press-och-aktuellt/nyhete...

https://www.seko.se/siteassets/pdf-seko.se/avtal/konflikt/fa...

If you're a member of a union and the union says please don't do X, and you're aligned with the union, then you will be happy to not do X. This isn't a forceful action nor is it the workers decision, it's this greyish thing between the black and white. The members of the union could have a vote and change direction to do X if they wanted, but why would workers defend a company trying to get around a model that's resulted in one of the best working environments in the world?

Of course, postnord is free to not accept strike breakers.

Stop thinking about Nordic unions as a boogeyman, a mafia, or whatever other "oppressive" figure you want to make them out to be, the way unions work here is different than what you are probably used to. It's a cornerstone on how the labour market functions in the Nordics...

That's a strange way of putting it. Is the us federal government notification not "forcing" anyone to pay taxes, or not smoke weed, because the us is a democracy and therefore it's "collective action"?

Because Seko could have a vote to deliver to Tesla if they wanted, but ultimately the Unions are on the employees side so we're okay with their decisions.

This is inevitably going to turn into a quibble about whether representation and/or the electoral college constitutes "true" democracy, so I'm going to head that off by amending my previous comment to be at the state level (rather than the federal level). There's several states that had ballot measures on tax increases and/or marijuana legalization, and failed, for example:

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Marijuana_Legalization,_Prop...

https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Proposition_C,_Medical_Mari...

https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Initiative,_Questio...

In those cases it would be strange to characterize the dissenters as not being "forced" into anything, even if it was a collective decision.

Okay, I see, but then you could also leave your Union for zero cost. You could leave your US citizenship too, I guess, by moving. But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?

Clearly it's not as simple or cheap as "zero cost", otherwise Tesla would have bribed some workers $1000 (or whatever) to defect, rather than hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers.

>But my point is I think forcing is far too strong a word for the union meanings here. Why wouldn't you support this if you benefit from the Swedish model?

Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not. I think taxes are a net positive for everyone in society, but I'm under no illusions that everyone's forced to pay it.

It really is! To leave a union you just leave. You'll miss out on some perks like topping up your unemployment insurance though.

> Whether you benefit from something is irrelevant to whether it's "forced" or not.

You can get most of the perks without being a member, because membership is anonymous within companies and unions have argued that everyone receives the benefits due to this! So you can have most of the perks of a union without paying "taxes", but I think it's fair to chip into the pot.

Tesla is doing exactly this. It was the first thing they did. (The exact amount however is not public.)

It's called "breaking the strike" and has been used for over a century. It's par for the game and every union trains to expects it.

Wat? In a discussion about if someone is being forced to take an action, consider not overloading the string "forced" with several meanings.

Of course you are free to break the strike or whatever feels right for you. But it might not be compatible with membership in the union, so they may well exercise their right to not keep you around as a member if you are actively trying to sabotage their work.

I suggest learning more about the Swedish model before spouting opinions on how things work here, you don't understand the system but feels entitled to argue on your assumptions.

It is not PostNord's decision. Striking is a constituional right in Sweden and it would be illegal for PostNord to prevent it.

But yes, this is a solidarity strike and should be described as such to avoid confusion or ambiguity. It's interesting to see this play out as solidarity strikes are explicitly forbidden by law in my country (Germany) and while strikes and unions are granted many legal protections (e.g. a company under strike is not allowed to hire temporary strike breakers to substitute the striking workers, though they can use their existing non-striking workers), the law also explicitly restricts strikes to the company the workers are employed by. This is presumably meant to "tame" unions and prevent larger organized action, solidarity strikes or even a general strike (which would not be placing demands on the employer but e.g. the government).

Not to say that this kind of decision tends to be non-biding and decided by vote. So all the influences the representatives have is deciding what vote to call; it's the workers casting the votes and deciding to follow them.

Saying the workers are doing it is more than fair.

Lucky for Musk that he picked a Finnish supplier for the Cybertruck steel…

But only regarding stuff exported to Sweden.

Tesla in Finland already follows the agreements agreed by the unions and the employer representative in the so-called kolmikanta. Because it's the law. Sweden has more loose laws there.

Finland had a devastating and bloody civil war with whites and reds and a somewhat different history than Sweden regarding the labor market.

IIRC some Finnish union people have tried to export labor union concepts to say China but I've heard that labor activists are persecuted there.

https://efe.com/en/economy/2023-12-07/finnish-union-will-be-...

I don't think Tesla's will be as popular in the future. They've greatly damaged their brand through these actions already.

This headline is out of context. From what I read, postal workers striking said that Tesla should not be allowed to collect plates themselves because it's a job of union workers. Tesla went to court and got an early judgement (that they can collect) while the case goes on. Don't really understand if they really went to courts to force postal workers to deliver and I think it's unlikely as the law is pretty clear.

The larger context is Gigafactory in Berlin. The workers in nordic region are trying to encourage them to form a union. This strike does not really hurt Tesla that much, but if there is a strike in berlin, they would not be able to manufacture any car for the region. This also explains tesla's stance. They cave here, and will have to cave in Berlin too.

The key player in this regard is IG Metall, the one most aggressively pushing workers to unionize on the entire continent.

What I said and more can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/d9317830-3b1d-4c03-9a8e-bb2073a84... Good context, but FT too reckons that tesla should accept the union and CBA, so take it as you will.

How exactly is this done? Do they refuse to accept the license plates when the Swedish Transport Agency wants to drop them off? Or do they accept the plates, but refuse to deliver them? The former would be more or less ok, but the latter would amount to theft (taking the property of someone else and refusing to give it to them). I don't agree with Tesla's anti-union practices, just curious...

So it’s all about the receiver, and it’s not the only reason one can have to refuse to deliver, in other cases safety and work environment has been cited.

I’m not sure what happens with the mail though, if it’s sent back to the sender or put in piles

I imagine they're just thrown into the corner of a warehouse somewhere.

No. You cannot waltz into a postal center, say "oh, that there stuff is mine" and then leave with it.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are combined the 3rd biggest market for Tesla. During some months we even edge out China temporarily becoming Tesla's 2nd biggest market.

The way our unions are being portrayed by Americans is ridiculous. Even pro-union Americans are making our unions sound far more aggressive and subversive than they actually are. A "blockade" just means no unionized workers and truck drivers want to offload and transport your products and supplies. It doesn't mean a literal blockade.

Americans believe in freedom of association only when it suits them.

Its cool for Google or banks to close all your accounts without any reason, and make your life impossible.

Its wrong for all unions/workers to refuse to work with Google and make their business impossible.

They both feel weird for roughly the same reasons: arbitrary decisions instead of laws dictate which behavior is tolerated for which group of people. In both cases the rights of individuals seem like they’re subject to the whims of other groups of people, instead of “liberty and justice for all.”

You're free to go to a court and fight against a strike organized by a union. If the court decides the strike is unlawful, the union will have to pay and stop striking.

Strikes and unions are not as arbitrary as it might seem.

Will Americans support laws to encode that Google or banks can't do that? I don't think so. You'd think it could be a bipartisan slam dunk, but, hey!

> where informal agreements dictate which businesses are allowed to operate.

They're not informal. They're part of Swedish law and the Swedish economic system. Tesla is attempting to act like a not-Swedish company in Sweden and is reaping what they've sown.

You say that "laws dictate"--sure, and the Swedish system delegates the particulars to the employer/union interaction much as, for example, the United States delegates to the regulatory regime. Unions can agree to pretty wide-ranging outcomes in Sweden. They, collectively, are refusing to do that.

In the US, the postal service is the OG government service - the power of Congress to create post offices is explicitly called out in the Constitution when it was signed.

Further, the US postal service has a mandate to provide mail access to every residential address - even if’s some remote island in Alaska.

I think the idea that the government can just throw up its hands when faced with a private labor strike, and say “Nothing we can do” is just baffling to us in the US.

If employees are being abused, let them ask for their rights.

Anti Elon, anti American sentiment?

Spotify is Swedish and there is currently no ongoing strike. If you look for articles in Swedish, you'll see plenty.

What makes Tesla different from Klarna and Spotify is that Tesla has a global policy to never sign. So Tesla’s Swedish company is prohibited by Tesla to do any kind of negotiation, and that escalates things drastically.

The "heritage" between the three is also different. Klarna and Spotify are/was Swedish, they know what going up against a union means, and it often involves going against multiple unions as they all help each other.

Tesla clearly have no idea what they were going against, as what is happening now is such an obvious fallout from not understanding the country they're operating in.

Klarna tried to basically 1:1 copy the anti-union campaign of Spotify, but it failed that time on account of the unions having learned to cope with that type of propaganda. Klarna is now under a union contract.

I don't think so. It's a cultural thing: Sweden, and the Nordic countries more generally, have a strong cultural heritage of unions representing the interests of workers. There are elements of protection not included in law - for example minimum wage - that are instead covered by union protection.

Tesla has taken a position that it will not sign up to collective bargaining globally - and so won't engage with the unions on it. That creates a fissure: a difference in policy.

So it's not anti-American. It's a refusal to accept the terms on which a corporation wants to engage. A similar situation happened with Klarna and Spotify as others have pointed out.

It might verge on anti-Musk, but only because this kind of thing is in "red rag to a bull" territory for him. He is utterly recalcitrant generally: backing down isn't in his nature. It would seem that has only stiffened the resolve of the Nordic workers and unions.

But even then it's equally valid to see Musk as "Anti-Sweden": unwilling to respect cultural norms in a country he wants his company to operate in.

Tesla has refused to negotiate. Even then, it still took five years before the conflict escalated.

At some point negotiations with Spotify will have to be restarted. It's likely not an option for Spotify to exit the country completely, which is perfectly possible for Tesla.

This sounds ridiculous.

Says the oligarch to the masses.

That word is often used in only a post-Soviet context, but the word is Greek and far older than the Soviet Union, and the Wikipedia page has a pretty clear definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy and whilst the word triggers near-allergic reactions from Americans it does seem to reflect the power control in the US recently.

They work for fractions and they are necessary for the company.

If a worker knows an owner is desperate, the worker can win. The opposite is true too.

I guess he knows that and I guess that is the real reason he dislikes them.

I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality that might be necessary in local disputes but certainly isn't as good as having everyone's incentives aligned. What I think Musk might be missing in this context is that European unions have a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.

What is a good example?

the claim was that unions, today, disseminate best practices that make up for lack of companies training their employees to be able to do their jobs well, which I'm skeptical about.

This is the first time I've seen someone mention this as a good thing.

Most of the time its mentioned in outdated regulations dragging out the economic output of Europe in favor of old people who don't want to use new technology. I think everyone who has worked in physical product company has heard a story about how European unions are slow and expensive which is why XYZ is done somewhere else.

I actually like unions, I just found it silly to think that the guild system and the laws that resulted from union's corrupting the government are good things.

Ultimately, I think a qualified support of unions in principle is going to bring pro-union folks towards the center much more effectively than a denouncement.

In America, yes. Painting Scandinavian unions as fomenting an us-vs-them mentality is more misunderstanding from people who don't understand what it's like to live and work here.

Unions here know that if the companies doesn’t prosper, so won’t the people employed by it.

So the industry and the unions negotiate agreements that ensures we have the strongest companies with the healthiest workers.

Sure, one side represents the company leadership and the other the workers, but they have a shared goal and collaborate on that, knowing that government legislation would be worse for everyone and not be agile and adaptable to the needs of different industries.

Nordic unions are fundamentally different from for example the French, which are more like the American. Both organize workers, but from completely different perspectives and completely different roles in their respective economic systems.

None of them have much to do with the guild systems of old. Some countries still have the guild systems intact.

What unions do is provide an opportunity for the workers to collectively apply power.

Of course, there's a lot of nuance in the implementations, and of course people can be corrupt as hell.

But in no way, shape, or form did unions create the management/worker caste split. Holy hell that requires some twisted logic.

In my particular experience, I always hated working unionized jobs I had and much preferred being a free actor with minimal fuss. I don't feel like "management versus workers" is a real divide in most non-union jobs I had (in which case you could say that systematizing the difference materializes the difference). But I also think it would likely be very different in different companies and industries. Unions aren't for me and I think they've had their use in the past, and I'm ambivalent as to their necessity in modern times (since governments now enforce a good set of minimums).

Looking at this from a distance and without picking sides, I can see both sides have a point and a bigger agenda. The actual conflict seems like it is a sideshow to this bigger agenda.

In Scandinavia the unions are historically very strong. Strong as in they are mostly socialist leaning countries where the socialists have set policies for decades backed by very strong unions that dictate how companies operate. Not just Tesla, all companies. The message is fall in line, or else we'll cripple your company. And it's a message not just to Tesla but to all companies.

One little problem though, Sweden doesn't actually have a socialist government currently. Neither does Denmark. And Norway has a minority socialist government coalition. So, socialists are fresh out of power all over Scandinavia and struggling a bit. Also as Tesla workers aren't unionized. These unions aren't representing those workers directly. This is part of their grudge. So, unions feel a need to assert themselves and reclaim some power. And they are using Tesla to do it. Perfect company for fanning the outrage a little and Elon Musk is always happy to offend anyone with incendiary statements. But you have to see it for what this is: political posturing by the unions.

With Tesla the agenda is that they are a multinational and they are investing billions world wide in creating giga-factories and lots of employment and they are looking to get the best deals for this. Governments are lobbying them heavily for being the next giga factory site. So, what's the signal Elon Musk is giving off with to those governments by doing this in Sweden? Get the unions of my back if you want my money. So, he's happy to let this escalate a little. It works wonders elsewhere. The big picture for him is getting favorable conditions to build his next giga factory elsewhere in Europe. The Swedish are just pawns in that game. My guess is he'll ultimately fold in some way to keep the Scandinavian market going. But forget about a Swedish giga-factory happening.

The striking Tesla employees are union members (IF Metall).

The Danish prime minister is from the social democrat party.

Yes, this is also the conversation where he said "Go fuck yourself. Go. Fuck. Yourself."

As for the socialist conspiracy theories, they mostly feel out of favor in the 1990s.

You can’t have a “should not respect strikes” clause in your tender, especially not as a government agency

It would require however that there are other couriers that fulfill their safety requirements with the logistic infrastructure to deliver to the entire country. That's not likely. But entirely within the realm of possibility that someone with deep pockets could start one.

However it would not make any difference for Tesla, as that courier would also be unionized. Few other companies would do business with them otherwise, as Tesla is about to find out.

How do you reconsile that such belief with democracy?

Because that set of beliefs is only compatiable with belief in some kind of trans-national oligarchy. Or maybe some sort of America-centeic-colonialism, i am struggling to think of better term.

This sounds like a shakedown.

There is a lot of verbiage about how Tesla is shooting itself in the foot for peanuts, and I guess it's a legitimate position to hold.

The far larger elephant in the room however, is a very public example of how a concerted labor action in Sweden can essentially bankrupt any international company setting offices in the country - by denying them access to public services they already paid for in taxes. This is bound to have profound chilling effects on any investor looking at Sweden as anything other than a consumer market into which to dump products.

Sign a collective bargain with a union and all unions are bound to leave you at peace for that agreements duration.

So far two international companies have refused this:

Toys R Us decades ago, eventually they had to give in.

Tesla now.

Where will these political demands stop? Will the unions drive into a bankruptcy any company that expands in another low cost, not unionized country? Any company that employs migrants? Who would bet a billion dollar investment on the answer to such questions?

The thing to do, when someone else is wrong, is to respond to incorrect information with true information, and to bad arguments with good arguments. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, that's ok, but please don't substitute for it with putdowns, name-calling, and so on; that just degrades discussion.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

That makes it asymmetrically harder to respond to lies than it is to spread them.

One should be able to point out that a source-less comment is questionable without having to reference sources oneself.

Everything else in the comment, such as the assessment that the action is politically motivated, is clealry a statements of opinion, not fact. And because my opinions run contrary to your own political convictions, you felt the need for a personal attack.

It's quite audacious to present such an exchange as an issue with sources.

This is buying a ticket to the movie and then a mobster taking another fee at the door.

They have options of course:

1) Stop doing business in Sweden.

2) Sign a collective labor agreement that ensure worker's rights just as every other company that operates in Sweden.

Complying with labor protections is not extortion.

And if Tesla does not wish to comply with the norms in Sweden they definitely should stop operating in the country.

Of course you sign a contract when doing business. It's like that in any market economy.

What's peculiar about Sweden is how that extends to the labor market. So instead of commercial civil law you have contract law. That's the only difference.

Tesla can either negotiate a contract and do business, or exit the market. They are free to do either.

What seemingly confuses people is that Tesla is not breaking any civil law. Only contract law, which the market has organized around, and which it is free to refuse their business about.

Who is blackmailing whom?

Why is it striking? They own PostNord. It's 60% owned by Sweden's government, 40% by Denmark's. It's a state-owned corporation.

The US government tends to use USPS for similar reasons.

So, far from being an action of the government itself, this is the doing of a private interest group - the unionized employees of a government contractor - that are thus able to completely sabotage any private company by denying access to essential (and legally mandatory) government services, license plate registration. It's arbitrary private control over a public service. This is striking for any country claiming to uphold rule of law.

What you might hint at is that the social contract is open to negotiation and Sweden, as a sovereign state, is certainly within its rights to operate its laws and courts as such. Sure. But is it wise, long term? I have my doubts.

The dealership situation in the US is a good comparison -- Tesla refused to comply with the parasites in the American system and set up dealerships. Tesla managed to sell on the internet or in neighbouring states while fighting to get many of the dealership protection laws overturned. They did indeed succeed in getting some of them overturned (deemed illegal), they succeeded in getting others interpreted differently (which means that the customary interpretation was illegal), they succeeded in getting yet others changed to be less extortionary.

That fight is not quite over yet. An interesting wrinkle is that it is not actually in Tesla's interest to get rid of all those laws, as long as they are more of a bother to the competition than to Tesla ;)

Some of the stuff that is happening in Sweden/Denmark/Norway/Finland is completely legal -- some of it is even fair and reasonable. Some of it isn't and relies on selective enforcement of laws or on customary but incorrect interpretations. Some of it is according to laws that are against constitutions.

I think Tesla has a good case here, too. Tesla can fight dirty (but within the law) by making the unions unpopular AND by making it extremely clear to foreign investors that these countries don't have all that much rule of law in certain areas and are therefore risky places to invest. I wonder who happens to own a really, really big platform for spreading that kind of information...

You misunderstand. There is no case. Tesla refuses to negotiate with the labor market, and the labor market refuses to do business with them.

They can either get a contract, in which case they are free to do business under contract law, or exit the market.

> and are therefore risky places to invest

It can certainly be argued that Sweden specifically has lax rule of law around the labor markets, depending on which countries you compare it with. But if you were to argue that the Nordic countries in general are risky places to invest, you'd likely get laughed out of the room. It is perhaps the region in the world with the strongest legal systems and stable societies and has spotless history of adhering to trade agreements and international rule of law.

It's other people who want to exercise their customary (but not really legal) right to extract private taxes who try to force Tesla to comply by sabotaging their business.

Tesla needs a contract with the labor market. It's that simple. Matters of the workplace is mostly under contract law in Sweden, as opposed to civil law. That's unusual internationally, even if all the Nordic countries have similar systems, but it is what it is. Free actors competing in an open market under contract law should be appealing to anyone with a libertarian bent.

The people who actually work for Tesla are car mechanics and it is the union that organizes car mechanics that is the pushing for a contract, so it is certainly people who work there who is behind the strike. They are known by name and give interviews with media, you can fact check everything so there's nothing strange going on.

And certainly nobody wants to sabotage anything. That would be counterproductive. Unions in general has every incentive to help create strong companies who can compete internationally and create as many local jobs as possible. This situation is not different, apart from the fact that they have not even started negotiations yet.

So if the Swedish state, by its inaction, allows an American car company to be targeted by public employees to the point where it is driven out of the market, the proportional retaliation from the US is not a 10% or 20% import duty; it's the complete blocking of Swedish brands. This would cost Sweden entire percentages of GDP and countless jobs.

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38559673