> We are not lucky. We worked hard for it for hundreds of years.

No, you are lucky, because your ancestors worked hard for it for hundreds of years.

Both are true,

The country is not "lucky" because it happened upon a culture, it worked towards it.

The individual is lucky to be born bearing the fruits of that hard work. But that puts a duty on the individuals not to squander or destroy these hard won triumphs.

... and if we continue to work for it as well then we are both lucky as well as reaping the fruits of our own labor. But I’m sure you don’t know (or care) about that part.

Can you tell me more about the safety net thing? As an American I actually don’t understand that point. Are you saying culturally your family wouldn’t feel obligated to be a safety net if another family member was struggling? And that the unions defacto provide that sort of guarantee?

Family can be and is one safety net in Europe, but many people haven't one, or one that can help, or one that wants to help. Nordic countries have been very stable through history and developed a culture where the community goes much farther than family. This helps the society become more resilient in an environment where the climate was historically very harsh and unforgiving. Also it feels great to be able to trust the existing rules in place. You know what to expect, and you feel fine to follow them when you know they are enforced to others as well. You expect others to know and follow the rules as well.

Generally, you take part of a union as a member. This includes that the union will deal with some negotiations with employers, will help you with legal issues regarding work and will help you with financial aid if you are let go.

In Sweden we have no laws for minimum wages and many worker rights are instead regulated through union-employer agreements.

I'm from Belgium and the same sentiment applies. The "safety net" here refers to protections encoded in both the law and how social and communal structures and services are designed to work. While you can always reach to your family (if you have one...), you probably don't have to or great deal of "bad things" need to happen for a prolonged period of time before you will need to consider this as an option.

Simply put, when it comes to your work environment, healthcare, housing, ability to put food on the table and access essential services like water, electricity, internet etc. - there are systems in place to reduce risk and "surprises", ensure your survival and equip you with the ability to tackle general "stuff of life". That's (in part) also why we pay very high taxes.

In the US, wages, vacation, healthcare, pension plans and care for the elderly are private arrangements set up by everyone individually (technically). The Nordic model is a collective arrangement, where safety nets are provided by the government, benefits are governed by law and compensation is governed by collective agreements between unions and employers.

Most families would provide for their own if it was required, but it's not a scenario most people ever need to consider, even as a backup, as bad luck alone can't put you in that situation, you'd need to actively seek it out.

No, I guess it means that Europeans think that there is a minimum level of welfare that must be guaranteed to everyone, and that minimum level is way above what is granted in the US. This doesn't mean that family members won't also contribute to that "safety net", just that there is a relatively high "acceptable minimum" and the state is expected to make sure that nobody falls below that.

Unions offer a lot of support to individuals that mean you don't need to save as much of a safety net for yourself. The most obvious one is unemployment insurance, I get 80% of my salary for 12 months if I lose my job until I find a new one which the Union will support. They also provide me with beneficial mortgage rates because I'm financially more secure with that insurance.

My name is Walter Hartwell White and I don’t understand these words either.

Yeah... As an American, i don't get it. Why is the Swedish union forcing the workers at Tesla to sign an arb agreement when they get paid much more than the average union worker in the country?

Does strong union actually result in better pay? If you compare the average software salary from the US to Sweden, it seems like it's doing the opposite, no?

> Does strong union actually result in better pay?

I could make double my salary if I accepted offers from US companies, but I've chosen to live in Europe instead.

Money is a mean to something, ultimately. I actually believe that the labor protections and social safety net provided in European countries typically makes for a healthier society.

There's other things just as important as salary.

https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/teslamedarbetare-ingen-har-koll-pa...

You live on the other side of a world ocean (at least). Not everything has to make sense to you or be expressed in Silicon Valley terms.

Try to make an effort yourself.

It's not all about pay. This is a very US view, unions can negotiate on a lot more aspects of work.

This is certainly not about pay, as no one has suggested Tesla pays worse than anyone else. It is about upholding a free labor market by contract law.

If you don't want to negotiate that contract, the majority of the market will come together and refuse doing business with you until you do.

>It is about upholding a free labor market by contract law

The unions negotiate for "All workers" under some kind of umbrella terms that has only sometimes specific prescriptions towards individual companies but always towards industries as a whole. They can dictate things like medical, vision, dental, sometimes day care. But they can also dictate things like work hours, safety, etc.

That all sounds gravy, but what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law, so they can't. But what if that's just how the people in the company, and people within that company want to work. That's how Tesla works. When you are getting of job at Tesla, you know exactly that you are signing up for long work hours. It's a company with everyone putting in 70 hour weeks for around 2 years, and springboard into another startup at a higher role, or more cushy FANG.

To give another example from another industry that would not work is the oil fields. We have the OCAW union here in the US but get like 1/4 of what the non-union jobs get. Because OCAW dictates work hours, and a salary but not time to rig. the non-unionized guys go out and work for 18 hours straight, sleep on a the rig for a bit, and get back to work. Again, not allowed under union contract, but if you do that for a couple days and make a bunch of money. Because we have worker pay, OSHA, etc. There is no need for unions here because the minimum labor standards for overtime pay and safety are set by federal standards not the "Union".

"Collective Bargaining" has lost it's sense of "Collective" at the scale it has grown. True collective bargaining has always been by the individuals themselves. Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions that they need to implement to be compliant is legalease non-sense.

> what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law,

Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.

If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.

Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.

> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions

Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.

You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.

There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.

The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.

But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.

> Americans don't get it. We Scandinavians are not built on a cultural foundation which circles around creating our own safety nets.

Worth noting that Sweden has a worse homelessness rate than the US, at 36/10k compared to 17.5/10k in the US[0]. Sweden's homelessness rate appears to be about on par with South Africa's.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_ho...