• guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok honestly the article doesn’t speak of the demands or offers. But anyway, what kind of agreement? That doesn’t really say anything otherwise. I did assume it was a monetary issue since it almost always boils down to more money even when you speak of benefits. More vacation, more sick days, more insurances, more hours, less hours, it all means money in the end.

        • guylacaptivite@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for that link it’s very enlightening. But isn’t that just another way of legislating how work contracts are negotiated? In the end what is the issue that prevents the unions to reach a collective agreement with Tesla? I might not have been clear in my first post but that’s more specifically what I meant. There must be some disagreement in the remuneration of workers isn’t it?

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The difference in remuneration in this case is only some holidays and health insurance. Not much in monetary value. That’s not the problem.

            A collective agreement also gives employees more rights which can be difficult to convert to a fixed price. Rights to negotiate. Rights to know the schedule in advance. Rights to take time off for education. Rights to take days off when you have sick children. Things like paid sick days, maternity and parental leave are also not fully covered by the law alone but requires a collective agreement to function properly.

            The only issue preventing the union from reaching an agreement with Tesla is that the CEO of Tesla does not want to sign a collective agreement. I don’t think he even understands what it is.