You're missing the point. I'm not debating the validity of whether people should leave Tesla and go work somewhere else. I'm saying that it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer.
A strike - whether because of your circumstances or another's - is you downing tools and stopping working.
> it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer...a strike...is you downing tools and stopping working
This hasn't been what a strike has meant in Scandinavia for a century.
I'm American. I broadly think unions are ineffective and corrupt. But it's ridiculous to claim this strike is unprecedented. Even the pattern of an American company being flummoxed by it is deeply precedented.
If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process. That doesn't capitulation. It doesn't even mean you must enter into one. But you can't blow it off, and at that so dismissively.
> If you want to do business in the Nordic countries, you respect the collective-bargaining process.
And if you want to do business in many other countries, you have to pay bribes -- or campaign contributions or hire someone's incompetent nephew or hire people with the right "discriminated against" skin colour. That's not legal, either.
> I'm saying that it's not a strike if you're just refusing service to a customer.
> is you downing tools and stopping working.
These aren't exclusive, it's just they've downed tools and stopped working for the customer the strike is against. People don't join unions for their employer, they join unions for their industry. Therefore a union can strike against an employer while maintaining working for those not breaking collective agreements.
Pretty sure Rand would say that if you join a company on a certain employment basis, you shouldn't then decide it's suddenly not good enough. But I haven't read any of her books, so I won't claim that very strongly!
No, I’m not. I’m on mobile, and failed to convey my message.
What I tried to say is, postal workers are increasing pressure on a company which is treating their workers unfairly, and these workers are connected to the postal workers in a way.
I'm not saying that employees shouldn't do certain things if they really don't like a company. Don't buy their products. Post opinions publically. Actually go on strike at your own employer.
I'm saying I don't think that refusing individual service to a customer is a good idea. It seems highly prone to groupthink and as it comes at zero cost to the striking party, prone to misuse as well. Actual striking is moderately balanced because it's limited and comes at a cost to both parties.
It seems simpler to just not work for the company. My understanding is they aren't treating their employees unfairly; they just aren't entering into the union merry-go-round. Their current employees all agreed to employment under the current situation, and now seem to be changing their minds once they've secured employment. But I could be wrong on that last part - perhaps this was promised and that was withdrawn.
> seems highly prone to groupthink and as it comes at zero cost to the striking party
In most cases, there is an alternative service provider. In this case there isn't, but there is also zero public will to change that due to the facts and circumstances of the dispute. Were those different, Postnord would be risking its monopoly on license-plate delivery.
I mean, in this case this is both their legal right and higher court ruled that it’s legal and doable.
So, who are we to judge? It’s their country and their laws. I just stated that, their laws and the way of action they took resonates with me. That’s all.
A strike - whether because of your circumstances or another's - is you downing tools and stopping working.