Tesla's Nordic labor crisis drags on as a Danish pension fund dumps its shares in Elon Musk's EV maker : europe

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 110 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Musk has previously called the Swedish strike "insane". His company has stood by its policy of not agreeing to collective bargaining and said that its employees in Sweden already have similar terms to what their union has called for.

He still doesn't get it, does he?

Having a union agreement is not about the compensation. It's about the right to negotiate the working terms.

His employees everywhere, do not have the right to negotiate anything.

They do not have similar terms, even if he pays more and makes pizza parties. It's not about that at all.

It's not about money. He has enough of that. The Swedish employees have enough of that. It doesn't matter what the compensation is. It's all about the rights to have a say in your own employment. He won't give that away, because he wants to rule like a dictator.

I hope that some day he will understand it. But I will not be disappointed if he decides to fuck off out of Europe altogether, because he's not at all fit to run a company here.

[–] Unsaved5831@lemm.ee 70 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And he said

I disagree with the idea of unions. I just don’t like anything which creates a lords-and-peasants kind of thing.

By not having unions, he exactly creates the lords-and-peasants kind of thing.

[–] pufferfischerpulver@feddit.de 34 points 11 months ago

There are no class differences! You're not workers, you're the same as me, the billionaire emerald mine kid. Why would you make yourself feel less by being in some kind of lords-and-peasants union? Wow I'm so smart!!

Fuck I hate this piece as shit and I hope he just dies soon.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Haha fuck he said that? The only way that could even make sense is if he views them as something lower than peasants

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If I remember correctly, the whole thing started because Tesla mechanics don't have a legally binding health and safety code. In Sweden, there is no national health and safety legislation, and it must be negotiated with a union to be legally binding.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It is possible for an employer to have an occupational insurance without a collective agreement. It's also possible to have a occupational safety representative without a collective agreement. It's actually legally required on all workplaces that employ 5 or more people, which is how it often starts.

Doing it right without a collective agreement.. not so easy.

Also, Sweden has sector codes for different types of business. These main sector agreements determine the minimum terms, even for companies that do not have an agreement.

It only makes sense for Tesla as well as any other employer to participate in this, because without an agreement, they'll always be behind the sector and dependent on what other companies negotiate.

All in all, it's better for the company to play along the local conventions. It's a recipe for disaster to attempt to go by minimum legislation. It'll always be uphill and the costs of lawsuits will be more than doing things right in the first place and the costs of not being to attract qualified personal are unfathomable. The key is to let people do what they do best. Work. By pretending to be the all knowing mastermind Musk is doing the company a disfavor. He is not acting in the best interest of the company at all.

In the context of this article, being Danish and having funds in pensions, I know that the pension fund has only one thing in mind: Money. They don't care about workers or the environment or anything else. F.i. These pension funds are still investing in fossil fuels because they believe they have an option to change those for the better.

They do not have a shed of hope for Musk.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He understands, that’s why he’s against it

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

X - doubt

He's acting against the interest of the company. The shareholders ought to fire him, but they can't because he has a magic majority rule in the company that allows him to control it with a minority of the shares. They tried in 2016. They should try again.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Preventing employees from negotiating helps companies

He just assumes workers will give in because they always have previously

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Wrong. Enabling employees to do their best is what helps companies.

Demotivating them by having uncertainty and nonnegotiable terms is bad for the company.

One man can not know what is required for a hundred men to work efficiently

It's megalomania for him to think that he knows best, and even if he did, for him to think that he could communicate what is best.

Musk has 110000 employees worldwide, but he still pretends to know exactly what each and everyone should be doing. No chance in hell.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are too idealistic for an actual conversation

If what you said was true then there would be no need for unions

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe so. I think it's more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.

It's becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.

Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term "Silent quitting" which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they're told and don't get a say in how they do it.

Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don't just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.

Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.

Which companies do because….

It benefits them

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Only in the short term. It's not sustainable against competitors who does otherwise.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you make more money than your competitors in the short term then you can buy them out

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nah. There's a cut off point somewhere between "making a profit" and "making a large scale company". The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.

Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he's still acting like he's running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can’t say I’ve ever heard someone argue that the mega corps are the good guys and the family companies are the bad ones

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 11 months ago

In Euro scale so it is. The family businesses are the ones that steal from the tip jar, while the big companies are generally more lawful and democratic.

This is because of unions. It's easy to cheat one guy on a payslip. It's impossible to cheat on 100 payslips of which 80 of them are in a union. When caught it's easy to pay off one guy whatever is owed. It's a stupid bet to try and cheat 100 guys who have a union to pay for their lawyers even if it's just a minor mistake. Big companies in Europe need to play by the rules for their own sake and not create risky situations like Musk is doing now. Musk might be smarter than a car mechanic but he can't "outsmart" an entire sector of mechanics.

Of course, big companies might be bad for other reasons, like for smaller entrepreneurs, just the same as everywhere, but they're generally better for the employees.

[–] magnetosphere@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

I don’t care whether he ever understands it, but I’m totally on board with the “fuck off” part.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 50 points 11 months ago (2 children)

He's like a reverse Midas: If he touches gold it turns to shit

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago

The Mierdas Touch.

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It used to be different, at least in his effect. Musk managed to create a public persona that for some reason stood for success. That's how he hyped up e.g. Tesla. It's a double-edged sword though. Just as a good name can elevate projects, a bad name can tear them down and Musks hype has taken quite the damage in the public eye and his persona turned from a strong asset into a liability.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

All Musk had to do was to keep his stupid mouth shut and keep playing the "I wanna improve humankind" benevolent billionaire. But no! He had to give his shitty opinion about that cave rescue in Thailand, then getting butt hurt about the expert not thinking his idea was brilliant and then call him a pedo.

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

And even that wasn't enough to destroy all of his public image. Dude could've stopped there, some people would've disliked him, but as far as the general public is concerned, it didn't happen or he had a singular brain fart. But he kept fucking up to the point where even the general public is aware what a hack he is. Twitter is of course the pinnacle of his ego.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 1 points 11 months ago

thats exactly when my opinion of him started to change. It would've been so easy for him to just stfu and keep his IRL iron man facade but no, he had to start talking

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

After Twitter, let’s sink Tesla. I’m in!

[–] AlexS@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

Hilarious!

[–] AceQuorthon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 months ago

Git gud

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Dropping Tesla shares sounds like a good choice not only for pension funds. I'd trust they'd drop them even if they weren't joining the labor crisis

[–] bAZtARd@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And all that by taking massive profits probably

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I expect my pension fund to make massive profits so yes, hopefully

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Ooh that's a fun way of fighting.

[–] muse@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

🤔 interesting, will look into this

[+] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why the fuck is it legal to gamble with worker's retirement funds in the stock market?

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Putting pension funds into safe long-term stocks & bonds is very normal.

I guess Tesla is no longer considered safe.

[–] venoft@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Tesla stock was never safe, it's way too inflated.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

That's the problem. It shouldn't be normal.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Would you prefer pensions to lose most of their value to inflation?

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] Takios@feddit.de 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You can see the alternative in Germany. A considerable amount of tax money has to go into the pension fund just to keep it alive. It's the biggest part of our budget!

[–] taladar@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

To be fair a large part of that is the ridiculous assumptions built into the system from the start, as far as I recall they assumed something like an 18% population growth from generation to generation as a minimum. This obviously won't work if you have past giant generations retiring at times when the current generation is much smaller.

[–] BA834024112@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And how would you suggest seeing a return on retirement savings?

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

obvious. By the magic of an ever increasing population in an ever growing economy. That worked super well between 1950 and 2000 when the populations grew by something between 50 and 200% in most western nations. Its just the people today not wanting to work 5 jobs and raise 4 kids that ruin it.

[–] neolazy@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago

The German model 🤮

[–] bAZtARd@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

What would you do with it? Just let it sit there and have it eaten by inflation?

Europe

Rules