Sweden’s Tesla blockade is spreading — Starting Friday, dockworkers in all Swedish ports will refuse to offload Teslas, cleaning crews will no longer clean showrooms, and mechanics won’t fix chargi...
Sweden’s Tesla blockade is spreading — Starting Friday, dockworkers in all Swedish ports will refuse to offload Teslas, cleaning crews will no longer clean showrooms, and mechanics won’t fix chargi...
Starting Friday, dockworkers in all Swedish ports will refuse to offload Teslas, cleaning crews will no longer clean showrooms, and mechanics won’t fix charging points as the labor dispute rages on.
Sweden’s Tesla blockade is spreading — Starting Friday, dockworkers in all Swedish ports will refuse to offload Teslas, cleaning crews will no longer clean showrooms, and mechanics won’t fix chargi...::Starting Friday, dockworkers in all Swedish ports will refuse to offload Teslas, cleaning crews will no longer clean showrooms, and mechanics won’t fix charging points as the labor dispute rages on.
You're viewing a single thread.
Would love to see this happen in the US. Would be a total shitshow but very entertaining to watch.
Not legal, unfortunately.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act
The Taft–Hartley Act amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), adding new restrictions on union actions and designating new union-specific unfair labor practices. Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns.
That is disappointing, but not surprising.
Oh no. Striking isn't legal! Whatever shall we do.
Isn't unionizing a crime in some states or somesuch?
In some ways I'm surprised by the confusing name of right to work states which turns out to be really easy to fire states.
“Right to work” refers to the fact that in those states, unions cannot force membership or payment, or force you to participate in labor strikes. You can still have a union in those states, but it’s very difficult for them to be effective because most people will choose not to pay into it, and strikes have significantly less bargaining power if there’s no legal obligation for union members to follow through with a strike.
The result is that in such states, there are very few unions, and so very few protections against firing workers for arbitrary reasons.
I feel like there's something more missing. We have "right to work" in Belgium. You can't be forced to join a union or a strike, yet unions are strong here.
Propaganda is the key difference, would be my guess. American's have had anti-union sentiments shoved down their throats for many many years now.
I grew up in a "right to work" and "at will" state working mostly retail, and I can confirm that most of the break rooms had a poster going over the negatives of unionization.
The "at will" part makes it so the boss can fire an employee for any reason they want, so anybody trying to unionize would be let go for some arbitrary reason if they were found out, anyways.
It is also the really easy to leave states. When my old company was taken over by new owners, a few years down the line someone was leaving to go work somewhere else. They gave their two weeks notice and was fired on the spot. Next guy that went to work elsewhere just quit without notice as they already knew they would not get their two weeks.
So they don't have to pay out the notice? I think locally they can fire you but then have to pay severance which depending on length of employment can be many more weeks than 2.
No
Technically sure. But what can unions do? What actual power do they have that they matter?
You're either uninformed or have been blinded by the anti union propaganda. There's a severe power imbalance between a company and an individual worker. Even if you're a highly skilled worker and have, according to the companies that push anti union propaganda, more bargaining power compared to the average worker you're still very likely to get the short end of the stick.
But collectively workers have power. Why don't we have companies that consist solely of shareholders and c suites? Because they produce no value without the workers. The value is generated by the workers and without the workers the company simply won't do anything. But it's hard to coordinate all workers to collectively use their power.
And that's the purpose of unions, to represent the collective bargaining power of the workers. Unions are extremely powerful and that's why companies love to lobby anti union propaganda. If you're a worker you should always be in favor of unions (unless you go even more left in your political views and see unions as a compromise to maintain the capitalist system).
I'm more aiming at the fact that protesting, the thing unions do to make changes happen, is illegal in a couple of states. Just straight up.
Aside from that I do live in Europe, so I'm a little uninformed of current laws against protesting
Wow, that's fucked up. Then there really not much unions can do, they've been effectively defanged.
This is not true in any US state per the 1st amendment of the Constitution. What you may be thinking of are so-called "right to work" states which have effectively defanged unions by making it illegal to require union membership or payment of union dues as a condition of employment. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but you can easily look it up if you want the details.)
Anyhow, the end result is that in "right to work" states it's almost impossible to unionize.
Short time shit show, long term benefit for everyone.
Things only happen when they are made happen. Also nothing begins big. there are probably at least small pockets of resistance everywhere, even if its just small groups of people or singular persons.