Lessons from Tesla Unions in Three Countries

Thomas Klikauer || In 2023, mechanical engineers – members of the Swedish Industrifacket Metall (IFM) union – dared to walk out of a Tesla repair shop. This set in motion what was to become one of the country’s most significant industrial disputes in recent history.

Yet, the number of workers on strike remained rather small – just 45 – but it hit Hitler-salute-giving Musk’s corporation hard. Soon, other trade unions – in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – started to reject working on Tesla cars.

Corporate managers quickly brought in strike-breakers to replace the striking mechanics – an old strategy. They also started importing cars from Germany. These were violations of the norms of employer behavior – though Elon Musk hardly depicts normal norms of employer behavior.

Since Tesla avoids collective bargaining and resents union recognition, this is a matter of the principles of macho-management. Two years later, 70 of approximately 130 mechanical engineers were still on strike.

A similar story developed in Tesla’s German Grünheide company, which continues to violate established industrial relations norms. Its corporate managers ruled out signing a collective agreement – with success so far. Tesla’s German setup has also successfully stacked the works council with its lackeys and flunkies. Tesla has committed numerous labor law violations. Yet, the very purpose of labor law is to make capitalism work – not to help workers.

Worse, in 2026, Germany’s IGM union suffered a stern loss in a hard-fought works council election. Musk won while workers lost. Things aren’t better in Trumpland – formerly known as the USA – where Musk’s management has fought trade unions ever since Tesla appeared on the scene. An organizing campaign (2017) by the UAW union failed.

In the second (2023), the company committed labor law violations – including firing workers for being union supporters. Surprise, surprise: Tesla’s macho-management denied breaking the law. Unthinkable – corporations breaking the law!

Riding the environmental wave, Tesla’s workforce reached 126,000 in 2024, producing 1.8 million cars in Austin, Fremont, and Nevada. Tesla has more workers than any of the unionized Detroit factories. Tesla’s global sales have suffered since 2023 due to public opposition to the far-right – some say neo-Nazi – activities of Tesla boss Elon Musk. Bumper stickers reading “This Tesla does not endorse fascists” have appeared in Europe as well as in the US.

Hitler-saluting Musk and Tesla seem like a usual American corporation destabilizing European labor institutions by importing union-busting from the USA. Yet, the actions of Tesla might result in institutional changes in all three countries targeted by Musk.

Musk’s power comes from his concentrated control of capital and his public Mussolini-style appearances. Together, they give his corporation the – perceived – strength to weaken labor institutions. These institutions once limited the attacks of corporations on US workers.

There is a real danger in Europe that Musk’s union-busting methods may shift employer practices towards anti-unionism. This is why European trade unions see the anti-unionism shown by Tesla as crucial, and as more relevant beyond what Musk’s managerial henchmen do in his factories. All in all, there are eight commonalities in Musk’s anti-unionism:

1. Collective bargaining: There is a resentment and rejection of collective bargaining with unions and of signing collective agreements.
2. Anti-Unionism: Musk and his managerial bedfellows spend significant energy evading and thwarting unions.
3. Surveillance: Inside their factories, they run a system of surveillance of workers that extends to sick leave and infiltrates workers’ use of online platforms.
4. Fordism: Musk’s neo-Fordism runs an exceptionally brutal working environment.
5. Competition: Worse, the ideologically obsessed free-marketeer forces workers into competition with one another.
6. OHS: The managerially driven work regimes are spiced with numerous occupational health and safety violations.
7. Time: The factory system runs a methodical and far-reaching overtime regime.
8. Inexperience: Tesla prefers the employment of young and ethnically diverse workers with next to no work experience.

Many of Musk’s eight anti-union, dehumanizing, and anti-worker strategies can be used by trade unions to organize workers. Improving Musk’s harsh working conditions is in the interest of most workers. Trade unions can improve solidarity among workers – creating mutual aid across workplaces, factories, and even countries. Trade unions can also inform Tesla workers that others work under the same inhumane conditions.

Often, simply knowing “you are not alone” can be a powerful motivator. Building on this, trade unions in all three countries – Sweden, Germany, and the USA – but also elsewhere, might focus on four key issues:

1. Tesla’s Self-image is Important.

Despite his South African far-right and racist background, Musk and Tesla brand themselves as environmentally conscious and innovative. Yet, the many scandals have sternly discolored the fine image corporate public relations has painted of Tesla.

The fairytale told by corporate public relations – or rather corporate propaganda – of Tesla as a force for good sharply contradicts what workers and unions have experienced, day in and day out, in Tesla’s factories. Inside these factories, Tesla’s green transition has been a transition to an authoritarian and despotic work regime.

Tesla’s prehistoric, outdated yet deeply embedded anti-unionism does not gel with its previously much-trumpeted goodwill image. Perhaps Tesla’s progressively minded customer base might not appreciate these facts. Highlighting Tesla’s anti-unionism and inhumane treatment of workers can not only damage its image but also strengthen the case of trade unions.

Such a symbolic company may shift toward a sustainable economy but cannot simultaneously and routinely violate workers’ rights. In other words, Tesla’s image is full of holes. Emphasizing this – despite the power of the corporate press – will hit Tesla.

2. Union Organizing.

Sadly, it has become rather common for union apparatchiks to take their own power for granted. This is no longer the case. Unions are only as strong as their members – not as a Michelsian bureaucracy. Tesla shows that – even in highly unionized Sweden and the German auto industry – union bureaucracies may lack the tools needed to maintain membership.

High unionization rates do not automatically ensure that members will join a strike. Recognizing Tesla’s despotic management does not necessarily translate into a willingness to act. In other words, recruiting union members remains imperative.

Mobilization drives are important, but high membership alone does not suffice. Trade unions must ensure that workers translate harsh work experiences into political consciousness. It is workers’ responsibility to change Tesla’s despotic management regime. On the upside, strikes will almost inevitably grow membership and support long-term union goals. On the downside, Tesla’s aggressive management has the financial resources to pursue anti-union strategies and ignore established workplace norms.

In Sweden, Tesla avoids collective bargaining by evading primary and solidarity strikes. In Germany, its macho-management has undermined works councils by installing anti-union candidates. In the US, Tesla simply fires union supporters, buoyed by pro-business labor laws and weak enforcement shaped by neoliberal ideology. Given all this, union power depends on persistent organizing. Solidarity must move from the national to the international level – just as capitalism and Tesla have done.

3. Union Solidarity.

International, European, national, regional, and local solidarity remain underdeveloped, as the Tesla case shows. Yet, this is a key power resource for unions. Tesla benefits from the free mobility of capital, labor, and services within the EU, using these conditions to weaken unionization and worker solidarity. For example, it has brought in workers from other countries to replace striking mechanics in Sweden.

Meanwhile, despite EU-wide labor regulations, unions remain largely confined to national frameworks. To counter this, Tesla unions must foster international solidarity. Organizing Tesla remains difficult given the combined strength of neoliberal states, resistant corporations, and a supportive corporate press. Still, unions have important tools: they can target Tesla’s corporate reputation and, within the EU, make use of institutional pathways such as the (admittedly weak) European Works Council.

Environmental Industry Policy.

Global policies and frameworks on reducing carbon emissions have been framed too narrowly. Tesla shows that these policies remain disconnected from institutions that protect workers from profit-maximizing corporations and macho-management.

For example, an EU directive allows social and environmental criteria to be included – though often in bureaucratic language. Tesla profits from green policy frameworks; these benefits should also flow to workers, not merely accumulate in the pockets of Elon Musk. The labor movement can highlight the need for a just transition – one that includes not only environmental sustainability but also the sustainability of workers.