this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023

161 points (94.5% liked)

Europe

8324 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

161

Postnord says no to Tesla (www.expressen.se)

submitted 1 year ago by CAVOK to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Postnord cannot order its employees to deliver mail to Tesla.

This is what the company writes in a statement to the Solna district court - where they also refer to "force majeure".

It was on Monday that Tesla sued the Swedish Transport Agency and Postnord, after the electric car manufacturer did not receive registration plates for new cars distributed. This is because the postmen and other employees are members of trade unions that strike in sympathy with Tesla in the company's conflict with IF Metall.

Now Postnord responds in a statement to the Solna District Court.

Postnord about Tesla: "Not true" Initially, the company writes, via the law firm Mannheimer Swartling, that Tesla's lawsuit is "characterized by invective and irrelevant descriptions" and that it is not true that Postnord's actions would be "system threatening" or some kind of "attack" against Tesla.

That we would have such an attitude or work in the manner alleged in the lawsuit is unrealistic and incorrect, says Anders Porelius, press manager at Postnord, in a press release.

Postnord claims to be neutral and outside the conflict between Tesla and the unions, but believes that it has an "obligation to respect the measures taken".

"Postnord assesses that Seko's and ST's sympathy measures constitute both a legal and a practical obstacle for Postnord to provide Tesla shipments that are addressed to Tesla," the company writes in its statement.

Refers to force majeure According to Postnord, the company has no control over the situation and therefore refers to force majeure. The company also emphasizes that the right to strike is constitutionally protected, and therefore applies over and above the distribution obligation in the Postal Act.

In the 14-page opinion, the lawyers at Mannheimer and Swartling then go through why they believe that Tesla's request for interim security measures should be rejected. They write, among other things, that Postnord's agreement is with the Swedish Transport Agency and not with Tesla, so if there is anyone who can request the ordered signs, it is the Swedish Transport Agency. They also write that Tesla can "easily" order new signs and collect them from the manufacturer.

The Solna district court must now decide what obligations Postnord has pending trial.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine how much richer Musk could be and how much larger Tesla would be, if Musk wasnt a narcissist man child.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we just happen to have created a system that favours narcissist man childs. Anyone somewhat decent will net get that rich in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We didn't create the system. They did

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

The hole keeps getting deeper...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately Tesla also sued the Swedish Transport Agency and been temporarily granted the right to collect the plates from the manufacturer. That is, assuming the STA complies with that court order instead of accepting the fines. They haven't decided that part yet.

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sverige/tesla-far-ratt-mot-svenska-staten/

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should accept the fines. It should be made clear that you need to accept unions to operate in Sweden

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this is one of the last hopes for Tesla workers I guess.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The plate company could strike.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

The plate companys union and Postnords union.

Then the plate company and Postnord should sue Tesla for the distribution to their businesses.

uno reverse

[–] qx128 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Putting the whole Tesla issue aside, can someone explain to me - a casual oberver - how it’s legal for a delivery company to Sweden to refuse to deliver to a particular customer?

In a hypothetical example, let’s say they don’t like a particular shoe store. Can they just stop delivering mail to the shoe store?

I’m not seeing how this could be legally reasonable, once it’s generalized to pertain to any given business. Could someone explain?

I suppose this would be especially relevant if the mail comes from a government agency? I assume the Swedish Transport Agency is a government agency. I guess it would seem reasonable if only private parties were involved… but why should a private transport company be allowed to prevent delivery of mail sent by the Swedish government? (Again, pardon me if I misunderstand the situation.)

[–] vind 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because almost all workers in Sweden are part of unions, those unions often work with the other unions and sympathy strike. Which means that they will not work with the company the unions are striking against.

This is so that the companies cannot bypass the strikes, which is often the case in other countries without as strong unions as Sweden does.

[+] qx128 -9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Sure, I get the idea of union camaraderie and deep cultural integration. But, that doesn’t really answer the question…

Can a delivery company refuse to deliver mail to any person or company due to personal beliefs?

When the mail originates from the Swedish government, sent to a company, is the delivery company allowed to block delivery?

If you remove Tesla from the story, and generalize the question, I still wonder how this can be legal?

[–] Poayjay 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not the issue being debated. It’s not the delivery company refusing to deliver to a specific company, it’s the employees. The delivery company is arguing that they cannot compel the union and it’s not their business. They are saying that this is between Tesla and their employee’s union. Tesla is arguing that the delivery company must compel them.

[–] qx128 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is an interesting nuance to me. I guess I assumed the delivery employees are agents of the delivery company, and therefore if the employees refuse to deliver an item it is the same thing as the delivery company refusing to deliver the item.

Where do you think the legal boundary would be? Could the delivery company refuse to deliver an item for any reason? What if the delivery employee doesn’t like the religion, type of business, etc, of the package’s destination?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Force majeure is the legal boundary that's being referred to. Basically the company can't force it's unionized employees to go against their union's sympathy strike. Therefore, they can't be held liable. At least that's what they are arguing.

[–] qx128 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah! This is the best explanation I’ve heard. Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

To reiterate and hopefully expand a little:

The postal company has already ordered its workers to deliver all packages, but the workers are defying part of this order.

The postal company can threaten the postal workers in various ways, but this would be the same as threatening the union itself, which would result in the union doing a full strike against the postal company, resulting in much bigger losses for said company.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The distinction is if it is officially sanctioned by the union. The company or its employees for that matter can’t just go on strike for belief reasons, they do it properly with their union backing them. Also it’s not that they simply refuse to work, they do their normal jobs but simply do not process Tesla deliveries. Everything else gets delivered fine.

As a german I love what is happening and I am really envious. While we do have unions too and they aren’t completely useless it would be so much better to have them negotiate like this. True, economy wide solidarity instead of our way of strike, pausing just one type of job in one sector, with plenty of accommodations for the companies to make it not as urgent to yield to the workers. We can’t even legally do a general strike. Fucking bullshit

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well in Germany "political strikes" aka any strikethat is not directly related to negotiating about union contracts or workers fighting management decisions against individual workers is considered illegal.

That rule was decided by a Nazi judge and is happily upheld in the federal republic, where in particular the employer and business organizations love continuity woth Nazi Germany, both in structure of the labor market and the people working at the employer lobby organizations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the German unions are mostly happy with the status quo and are doing nothing to challenge it, because most union leaders also get to sit on the boards of the companies they are supposed to represent their members against, and have a cushy revolving door with the "Social" Democrat party.

They also keep massively underdelivering in the narrow field where they can act legally, most often not even securing enough pay raises to compensate for inflation. This has lead to a vicious cycle of weak unions losing members due to their weakness and becoming even weaker.

They are doing the entire workers' rights movement a great injustice, especially considering that unions and strikes were entirely illegal in the past and many people died fighting for making them legal.

[–] logi 14 points 1 year ago

Could the delivery company refuse...

The delivery company isn't refusing anything. It's the striking employees as part of a specific labour dispute where there are specific demands and Tesla has a clear way to resolve the dispute.

I don't think the delivery company can refuse to deliver items at all or they'd face a lawsuit like the one Tesla just made and it would actually be successful.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

That would be discrimination, and I imagine the company would fire the employee in that case.

The difference between that scenario and what's happening is that the employee is also an agent of a union, not delivering mail to Tesla is part of an ongoing strike, and the right of unions to strike is protected. If a union or individual employee decided not to deliver mail based on ideological differences, not as part of a strike, that would not be protected. If the strike ends and they continue to not deliver mail to Tesla, that would also not be protected.

[–] stephan262 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From how I understand the judgement. Yes the postal company does have a legal obligation to deliver to all businesses. In this case, it's not the postal company making the decision to not deliver to Tesla but rather the union. Therefore the postal company is unable to make the deliveries due to circumstances outside of their control.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

To really hit home the point in simple term: since the postal company hires people whose part of a union and the union stirke, the postal company is unable to fulfil it's obligations. This is mainly due to the fact that the postal service by law can't force union workers back to work. Therefore Post Nord argues That since 'they' as a company have no workers to deliver the mail and have no legal control over the union, they're not liable for mail undelievered due to striking employees.

[–] JJROKCZ 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The company isn’t refusing, its workers are refusing in sympathy with striking workers. Class solidarity is still honored in some parts of the world

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

some people were of Royal blood where you still respect the system. All are equal under the law and that means respecting people's right to strike even it's in convenient. It's important to, not like the USA, treat the people who work for you as animals, but as human beings with talents and families. Slave Labor is abolished was the latest news. haven't reached Elon Musk or America, for that matter.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

the company can refuse to deliver mail under a few obvious situations:

too far off regular delivery routes (though depending on the laws behind postal delivery in sweden this might not be an acceptable reason for postnord, but certainly would have to be for a private company)
consistent danger to delivery personnel

so there’s definitely a line somewhere. i think that postnord is arguing that it can’t force its employees to deliver to tesla in the same way that it can’t force its employees to deliver to a dangerous address. the article also states that the right to strike is part of the swedish constitution

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

In addition to the "it's not the company, it's the workers", argument, I'd like to pokea second hole in this question.

let’s say they don’t like a particular shoe store. Can they just stop delivering mail to the shoe store?

No they can't. But a union can, under certain circumstances and for certain reasons. "I don't like you" is not a reason to strike. But "we support the the workers of the shoe-seller-union who are currently striking" is a good reason.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because the constitution places workers rights above delivery companies obligations. That's it. The company can't force workers to deliver the plates. The specific action is blocked.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

It's not the company, it's the workers. The workers of the delivery company are striking and refusing to do any work related to tesla. Workers together strong.