I'm a union person. I've been a rep and stood alongside people in arguments with management. To a fair degree I agree with him. If the people in a company feel they don't need a union and the company is treating people fairly, then crack on. The only time I've been needed as a rep is when one side or the other, have gone militant and mutual respect has broken down. The lords and peasants thing is a bad analogy, though. Even with unions present, people rise within good companies.

Unions from outside the company forcing Tesla (and their workers) to have a union when they don't want one, I disagree with. That a union can force other people outside a company, to cripple that company from outside... that's not right IMHO.

In this case, however, there does seem to be a union inside Tesla which is having issues and negotiations aren't working, which have triggered sympathy strikes. So I feel like I don't have the full facts here.

"Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace" was a very interesting read on engagement and although they went full employee ownership, it proves that there are different ways of engaging employees and company operations.

Nobody is forcing a union on employees who don't want to join one. In Sweden joining a union (or not) is an individual matter but it's also not up to the employer whether employees get to join one.

Since you admit you don't have the full facts maybe you should read about the Swedish model for industrial relations? It has been very successful and one of the core parts is that it's up to employers (or employers associations) and unions to negotiate, with the state only guaranteeing people's basic rights.

In this case, the union is forcing itself on the employer. The way I read it is... "If you don't have a union in Tesla, we'll starve you until you do." ... that's not acceptable. It has to be driven by the employees. If they don't want one, then why should a union force itself into Tesla.

Don't be so naive. Every company gets the union it deserves.

If the company was run reasonably, there's no way people could be "forced" to pay their own hard-earned money to subscribing to a union they didn't want.

As for Musk not liking organised labour, that's a very strong cue that he has no idea of the positive outcomes achievable by working with a union (making his workforce happier, more motivated, etc.).

If a company was run reasonably and the employees didn't want a union, then why should a union be there in the first place?

Unions should only be where the employees feel they want them.

We're basically saying the same thing... and you're calling me naive?

"If the company was run reasonably, there's no way people could be "forced" to pay their own hard-earned money to subscribing to a union they didn't want."

Never heard of Equity then?

How do you know that they don't want a union if one doesn't exist that they can join or show support for without losing their job, for instance?

If the union exists, membership isn't obstructed and nobody joins it, you have a point.

But if the union does get formed and lots of people join it, you're just as wrong as Musk (which is pretty bad!).

And the only way to tell? Allow a union.

It's like those websites who used to always say: "Yeah, our site doesn't work in Opera/Netscape/Firefox because nobody uses it, our website stats show..." and never understood that if people CAN'T use something, you can't use those statistics as if they're proof that they DON'T WANT TO.

I'm anti-union - for completely other reasons[1] - but even I think that an employer that tries to stop a union forming has something to hide. If the workers are truly happy, they'll join the union or not, and that'll be the end of it. A bit more paperwork, maybe a few things jump higher up the agenda, but generally everything will remain the same. Obstructing it and refusing to engage just tells me that Tesla has stuff to hide and is worried what a unionised action would reveal.

[1] - I work in a heavily-unionised industry. My pay has been - without fail - higher than that negotiated by unions for their members. I disagree with some unions "we should all be on equal pay" stuff, because some employees inherently are more valuable than others. And my negotiating a better personal deal shouldn't be used as a trigger to also automatically upgrade everyone across the country doing a similarly-titled job. I've been sworn to NDA for my salary, and I even am still the proud sole-occupier of a payscale created especially for myself in a certain area of a London Borough (after MUCH protest, but I set my price and they either paid that or didn't, and they chose to literally INSTRUCT Borough HR to create a payscale just for me that nobody else has, and the Borough protested like hell because it was so much upheaval and could be so problematic for them across the rest of the Borough). At no point have I been "conned" into thinking I'm earning more either, as I am privy to payroll data in my role even if only incidentally. Also: I don't need union backing to get things done, because if I think something is that wrong, I just raise all the alerts and then move on if nothing is done. I also don't need a union for personal representation. I've literally told HR departments their own obligations under the law before now because they simply weren't aware. I once fought for 3 years to prove that I was doing everything I was supposed to do... on my own... against the entire employer I was working for... including the HR department... including their lawyers... while doing my job... without legal advise... just as a thing to clear my own name out of principle... and then left the day they admitted defeat... after they'd been trying to build a (false, I hasten to add) case against me for dismissal. It was the most fun I ever had.

I've even represented co-workers against the employer that we're both working for on matters rather unrelated to my job. When I sat in on meetings at that co-worker's invitation, there was an immediate 180 about-face in how the employer dealt with them. And the look on the employer's face when they realised that the representation was not some union official or employment lawyer, but me, was priceless. They knew they were in trouble and I wouldn't back down. And not just one instance, not just one co-worker, and not just one employer, either.

Unions should exist. Unions should be available to all. And workers should get a (free) choice of whether they want to join, irrespective of their employer's beliefs on the matter. And I'm someone who has never, and would probably never, join a union even if it was free and acted only in my interests.

Mate, you are not in a union, but you certainly do the job they should do...

Also, things work a bit differently in the Nordics than in the UK - it seems a bit less of a mess (looking at the UK from the outside, just a general feeling).

First off... full marks for representing someone and getting a result.

> If the union exists, membership isn't obstructed and nobody joins it, you have a point.

The problem is that unions can use muscle they don't have once they are in a place, and can achieve results that the staff who aren't members, don't actually want.

I've been places where unions have done things that both the union members and the non-union members don't want to happen. Militant unions are just as bad for employees as militant employers.

"I just don't like anything which creates a lords and peasants sort of thing,"

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. That's exactly why anyone working for Musk should be in a union; so that when the capricious Lord in charge decides on a whim to do something arbitrary and 'all you peasant workers can either jump to it or leave', they have some form of protection. Unions aren't about fighting employers, they are about protecting the employees working for employers so that they can do their job properly without having to worry about their employer unfairly canning them for 'reasons.' That said, I'd never work for Musk even if I were in a union because the guys a toxic shitbag who's cultivated this fake aura and cult of being a genius when he really is not.

Just a bit of a check on one aspect of what you're saying. - "That's exactly why anyone working for Musk should be in a union;"

You're making decisions here on behalf of Musk's employees. Give them the legal power to make their own mind up, let them make their own mind up, and the legal muscle to have a union if they want one.

And yeah, I'm not Musk's greatest fan either.

FWIW, I read it as more of a recommendation ...

Yes, I took simonlb's comments as a personal thought too.... but the whole point of where I'm coming from is other people making decisions on behalf of the workers themselves.

"If the people in a company feel they don't need a union and the company is treating people fairly, then crack on. "

Absolutely. But in this case, the people in the company ARE in a Union, and Tesla is refusing to speak to them as a union. Musk himself says that if Tesla employees want to unionise then there is a company failure (ie the employees feel that the company isn't treating them fairly). But when it DOES actually happen, instead of recognising the company failure and seeing what is needed to fix it, he and Tesla management are doubling down

Quote

It's unknown whether Tesla plans to take further action to stop the strikes, or whether it'll cut its losses and bargain with employees – we asked, but didn't hear back.

I fully expect that the petulant man-child aka Musk will take his ball and go home. Like all bullies he hates proper resistance. Look at his boss, Donald "I am the Retribution" Trump who has apparently decided to chicken out of testifying in NYC next week.

Look at Musk's reaction to Ad buyers boycotting Twittler... He loves to get his own way and hates it if someone has the temerity to say 'No'.

Trump hasn't chickened out... he's wised up and realised that every time he opens his mouth, he digs himself a deeper hole. And right now, the hole he's in is heading to China.

I'll have some of what you're on, that shit is STRONG!

Why not both?

Unions want to force Tesla to the table when they have no agreement in place. In other words they want to be the ones making the rules. Why would Musk then even be stupid enough to make an agreement knowing that the unions will use it as a weapon at every eventuality?

"IF Metall workers in Sweden – where Tesla doesn't manufacture vehicles but has a number of repair and service shops – have been on strike since October after what they described as years of Tesla refusing to bargain with the union. IF Metall-represented employees claim Tesla hasn't guaranteed them good wages, a pension or insurance."

The core cause is in the article, perhaps you just skimmed thru it and missed this. Sweden is not the USA.

My point exactly. And who mentioned USA?

UK Car industry size: Over 775,014 cars, 101,600 commercial vehicles and 1.5 million engines were built in the UK in 2022

When you say "Exactly what destroyed the UK car industry", can you clarify what you mean?

Yeah. Land Rover Defender parts from all over Europe and finally bolted together in Croatia.

Was that one of those reckoned to be "built in the UK"?

Central console in my UK-branded car "Made in Czech Republic".

That's a UK Car industry?

This is not a consequence of Unions, it's the consequence of so-called globalisation and the search for maximum profit for shareholders which led to transfer jobs to countries where the salaries are the lowest.

Look at Volvo, it still makes many cars in Sweden, where Unions are strong.

"He can't just make his own rules." => Spidey-sense says an f-bomb will land soon.

"I just don't like anything which creates a lords and peasants sort of thing." => Factually correct, if we take into account the plural of lord.

What I have read is that the union, IF metall, has given Tesla at least 3 options that it finds acceptable:

1) Negotiate a collective agreement between Tesla and the union.

2) Tesla joins an employers association and lets them negotiate with the union on Tesla's behalf.

3) Tesla outsources it's employees to a third-party that has a collective agreement.

Collective agreements set a "floor". Employers can always offer better terms and conditions if they so choose.

Tesla has apparently said no to all three options. The union started this discussion in 2017 and decided to take action in 2023.

In other news Tesla Sweden apparently owes a local vendor more than 4 million SEK. Tesla has refused to pay the invoice which has been sent to a collection agency.

In other news Tesla Sweden apparently owes a local vendor more than 4 million SEK. Tesla has refused to pay the invoice which has been sent to a collection agency.

Tesla will discover that the Swedish legal system prefers the swift and summary way of dealing with dead-beats. The Swedes like their auctions, its a culture thing for the community to go to the bankrupt neighbours place on a sunday and strip it of anything of value, while having coffee and cakes :).

And, to emphasise the vindictiveness and attention to details: When something goes to collection, "Kronofogden" will shamelessly sell everything, even your most pathetic tupperware collection! Just look at it: https://auktion.kronofogden.se/auk/w.ObjectList?inC=KFM&inA=WEB