This is just how labor unions roll in the Nordic countries. McDonalds learned this in Denmark [1]. The sooner Tesla realizes they need to negotiate labor contracts through the unions to operate in Sweden, the more money they can make.
The two situations have an obvious difference. It's hard for McDonalds to sell Big Macs in a country without McDonalds restaurants in it. It's not hard for a car company to move production to a different country; that happens all the time.
So pulling out entirely is a much more realistic option for a car company than a restaurant, and as a result the car company has more leverage and both sides know it. And they can pretty much hold out indefinitely because in the meantime they can just make the cars somewhere else, the same as they would forever if they left.
It's not obvious what the unions have to hold over them when "stop making things in that country" is a completely viable alternative for the company which might have been nothing more than a coin flip even before this.
Tesla doesn't make anything in Sweden. Their workforce is mostly mechanics working at car service centers. What the unions can do is make it very hard for Tesla to operate in Sweden. They cannot hire other companies to perform something for them, no electricians to repair charging stations, no cleaning services, cannot source any parts for cars there, etc. They can of course hire people directly to do these things and likely pay a premium to be able to attract people and get the things they need from other countries and use their own drivers to get that to Sweden.
Sympathy strikes might spread to the other Nordic countries and maybe even Germany, where they are already fighting IG Metall. Then the federation of Nordic transport unions have proclaimed their support for IF Metall, so Tesla might be unable to get anything shipped in these countries.
Or they could just sign the agreement that sets basic minimum requirements which supposedly they already exceed.
> Their workforce is mostly mechanics working at car service centers.
So why don't they stop having those and let independent shops do it? Repairs used to be a major profit center for traditional dealerships but electric cars are supposed to cut that way back, right?
> They cannot hire other companies to perform something for them, no electricians to repair charging stations, no cleaning services, cannot source any parts for cars there, etc.
Why does this bear such a strong resemblance to organized crime?
Can you imagine if corporations could do this? You get into a disagreement with Microsoft and can't do business with any company that uses Windows anymore?
I kind of hope they find a way around it just to fight back against the unreasonableness of it.
> Or they could just sign the agreement that sets basic minimum requirements which supposedly they already exceed.
"If once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane."
It's obvious that the reason both sides care about this is the precedent it sets rather than any specific details of what they're negotiating over today.
Tesla could do that. Nothing stops them from hiring someone else to provide this service, someone that has a collective agreement in place. This is the most likely outcome here as the other options are withdrawing from Sweden or signing the agreement.
American companies also has a pretty strong resemblance to organized crime.
What do you believe is so unreasonable in the collective agreement? Supposedly Tesla already exceeds the minimum bar it sets.
More than 90% of workers in Sweden have a collective agreement. This isn't the first time that an American company ran into the Swedish system, they've set the precedent multiple times already, this isn't going to be any different.
I don't know if you should knock government investment in technological development, seems to have worked pretty well for COVID vaccines, space shuttle for the Moon, and brutally convenient murder machines
911 generally does perform their job well. Your issue is with the police and is valid, but there are many other public services an operator will route to you (ambulance, firefighter...)
Not sure that protection is a utility, but even then I think the reason Cloudflare gets criticism/critique (not harassment...) comes as a result of the online nature of LGBTQ communities and Cloudflare's location in the closest thing to a physical epicenter of those communities.
I don't know what distinction you were imagining, but I think this one is relatively simple
Yeah, it's even in the OP: "Users saying that it's a good idea / product after a demo doesn't mean that the product has PMF. Users desperately wanting to use the product and pay for it ie., retention / repetitive usage is PMF."
The bigger issue is clearly that the advice boils down to something more like "if you don't have buyers, you won't make sales", which is just common sense and I'm surprised we need to have a whole buzzword about it.
You're right that a quote is not necessary, but GP was describing what needs to happen for a quote to become a contract. The quote's existence is the premise.
Have you checked out https://www.nushell.sh/? It seems like exactly what you're describing. Although I know of people who are happily using it as their main shell, I only really use it when I need to read and manipulate data in files.
If you finished that paragraph (or even that sentence), you would have found that the author agrees with you!
> It takes years of practice to become a terminal guru, but here's the good news: we can take a shortcut. We don't really need to know 98% of the stuff you can do with a terminal. If we focus on the most-important critical fundamentals, we should be able to become comfortable with the command line in a remarkably short amount of time.
That's sort of what they have become. A couple generations ago, it was for working conditions.
For my coal mining grandfather, it meant safety equipment like respirators so you didn't get black lung, and that the company had to send down a meal for you if you were working a double (before that you had to rely on the next shift to give you items from their lunches, if they were willing to share).
Crediting unions solely for pursuing the creation of federal workplace safety regulations is a bit of a revision. It was a issue of significant public interest in the late 60s, and the specific reason that OSHA ended up being created was that Nixon had made a campaign promise to address workplace safety.
But regardless of the history, it’s not longer especially relevant to the roles of unions today, and certainly adds nothing to the value unions supposedly provide to their members.
I didn't credit them solely. Yes workers and workers right organizations supported it. Unions were the main ones lobbying it. We all know that without lobbying things don't get done in the US (unfortunately).
The question wasn't about what unions do today. The question specifically asked what unions were for. I stand by my statement that they were formed not only for pay increases, but also for working conditions improvements.
Well, it seems like you can't do those things when you're asleep... I suppose either you find a way to move those responsibilities to when you're awake or you can't use this technique.
[1]: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-de...