> what if a company like Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for all it's engineers. But that goes against Union Law,
Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.
If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.
Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.
> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions
Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.
You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.
There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.
The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.
But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.
Which is exactly why the choice to handle the labor market under contract law has been made.
If Tesla wants to dictate 60 hour work weeks for engineers, they negotiate a new contract with the relevant union. That's why engineers have their own union, to gain the flexibility to negotiate contracts localized for specific sectors and part of the workforce.
Now 60 hours a week is a lot. That's not good example since it so extreme there is likely no legislative room for that. It is 12 hours a day and society would simply not be prepared with daycare and other amenities. Even if it was legal it would not be good for families and cause increased healthcare costs. Maybe you could argue for some sort of nanny system but nobody pines for the 19th century bourgeoisie anymore. Too much is known from that era.
> Forcing Tesla on a blanket union contract instead specific clauses and prescriptions
Yes, this is exactly why Telsa needs to negotiate a contract.
You seem to advocate for the model which exactly what is already used. Tesla needs to negotiate a specific contract for them, instead of relying on blanket labor law.
There is no legislation that requires this, which is the case in for example neighboring Finland. This is to accommodate for smaller businesses where contract negotiation is an unnecessary burden. There are pros and cons with both models, but it is important to realize how this is different from for example the German model.
The choice has been made and the labor market is handled with contract law. You can argue that that is a bad idea and Sweden needs to adopt the French or American labor market model instead. That's would be intellectually honest. You could also argue that there should be stronger laws against operating without labor contracts, like in Finland. Which is also fine.
But you can't argue that Tesla should be allowed to operate without a specific contract, when the circumstances clearly demand one. That's at best a misunderstanding and at worst just dishonest.