The conflict between Swedish unions and Tesla heated up on Friday as a supplier of critical components joined in a sympathy action to get the electric car maker to sign a collective bargaining agreement for its Swedish workers.
So, a Union won’t stop a person from taking a job but will actively see to insert itself when a person does. There are Several ways that can be interpreted.
The implication is that the mechanics sought out Tesla (Applied,for,employment) and then accepted the Terms of Employment,ent offered. Now the union comes in after seeking to,change those terms. On top of that, there is no confirmation as far as I have seen (in Swedish language, or English) that Tesla has treated the mechanics unfairly:
Is Telsa not meeting the minimum wage? They mechanics accepted the salary and terms governing and increase (changes) it when they ‘signed on’. Did they not?
there is the same observation for termination of employment, pensions, as well as yearly salary increases. All of these topics are,standard,things covered in a,corporations Terms of Employment, which a new employee signs (legally) when they accept an offer of employment. And, that’s if these topics aren’t covered by govt law as they are here in the U.S.`.
So, if the employees accepted those terms, it sounds like this all reduces down the the Union inserting itself with claims that this agreement is necessary after the mechanics, by virtue of their accepting the company’s Terms of Employment, saying that they were satisfied with those terms. And, this is on top of not demonstrating how, as many have claimed (subjectively) here in this topic post that (paraphrasing) ‘Tesla is mistreating its employees’.
This,is,all standard rhetoric also here in the U.S. as the recent UAW leader’s speeches show. They say that to get support in the media as well as and keep its me,hers motivated. However, the underlying theme is,that the union just wants more power. Does any of that carry over into the Sweedish context?
So, a Union won’t stop a person from taking a job but will actively see to insert itself when a person does. There are Several ways that can be interpreted.
The implication is that the mechanics sought out Tesla (Applied,for,employment) and then accepted the Terms of Employment,ent offered. Now the union comes in after seeking to,change those terms. On top of that, there is no confirmation as far as I have seen (in Swedish language, or English) that Tesla has treated the mechanics unfairly:
Is Telsa not meeting the minimum wage? They mechanics accepted the salary and terms governing and increase (changes) it when they ‘signed on’. Did they not?
there is the same observation for termination of employment, pensions, as well as yearly salary increases. All of these topics are,standard,things covered in a,corporations Terms of Employment, which a new employee signs (legally) when they accept an offer of employment. And, that’s if these topics aren’t covered by govt law as they are here in the U.S.`.
So, if the employees accepted those terms, it sounds like this all reduces down the the Union inserting itself with claims that this agreement is necessary after the mechanics, by virtue of their accepting the company’s Terms of Employment, saying that they were satisfied with those terms. And, this is on top of not demonstrating how, as many have claimed (subjectively) here in this topic post that (paraphrasing) ‘Tesla is mistreating its employees’.
This,is,all standard rhetoric also here in the U.S. as the recent UAW leader’s speeches show. They say that to get support in the media as well as and keep its me,hers motivated. However, the underlying theme is,that the union just wants more power. Does any of that carry over into the Sweedish context?