The Swedish article does. Some things mentioned are not a sufficient pension plan, lack of insurance covering loss of pay due to long term illness or injury, life insurance, the right for annual wage renegotiation and the right to work part time. They also claim that Tesla is paying a below average wage.
> They also claim that Tesla is paying a below average wage.
It's hard to understand this. Why take the job if you don't like the pay? Taking the job at a certain wage and then striking seems the wrong way to go about things. Can anyone who knows the system explain this a little more?
Agreed. If Tesla create new jobs and they pay below average wages, they won't attract workers from other companies. It'll also be harder to retain staff. Surely they'd move towards the average in order to operate normally rather than being forced there by some collective work agreement.
From my understanding of the union model in the Nordic countries, the intention is to push the business to be better, not simply a game of competing adversarial interests
There isn't a legal minimum wage in Sweden, it's collectively argued for by the unions. It's pretty rare to find a company paying poorly against the market in Sweden.
That a valid point, in a perfect world no one would choose to work for a company that pays substandard wages or offers inadequate benefits. But as it stands people need money to pay for food and housing, which can put them in a disadvantageous bargaining position.
With Universal Basic Income perhaps this could be avoided.
