Published August 28, 2026, 4:00 a.m.

The “Jojo” strike was intended to shake up Tesla and increase the chances of a collective bargaining agreement.

[The Swedish term jojo-strejk literally means “yo-yo strike”, because the workers move back and forth between working and striking.]

Instead, Tesla took advantage of the situation to buy off the strikers.

Nevertheless, IF Metall’s bargaining secretary, Simon Petersson, believes it was the right course of action.

“We had to escalate,” he says.

When IF Metall called Tesla’s mechanics out on strike on October 27, 2023, the demand was to sign a collective bargaining agreement. The conflict escalated rapidly as other LO unions joined in with solidarity actions. But Tesla continued operations and refused to sign an agreement.

In the spring of 2026, discontent grew among the striking mechanics. The criticism centered, among other things, on how IF Metall had handled strike pay and taxes, the requirement that everyone stand a 40-hour strike watch, and the strategy of sending strikers back to work only to call them out on strike again.

In August, just before the strike was set to resume, it became clear that several members had received offers from Tesla to resign in exchange for compensation and had left the company. In the end, there were no members left. On August 13, the union announced that the conflict was over.

“It was, of course, extremely sensitive for all of us. A very sad decision, marked by disappointment,” says Simon Petersson, contract secretary at IF Metall.

“It was a well-known phenomenon to us”

IF Metall called the buyouts “extraordinary” and Tesla’s methods “unacceptable.” But according to Simon Petersson, they were aware of the risks.

Did you factor in the possibility that strikers might drop out?

– Yes, absolutely. People had reached agreements like this earlier in the conflict. It was a well-known phenomenon to us.

When the “yo-yo” strike got underway in early June, the buyouts began to pick up speed. When did you start to realize that Tesla was buying out strikers on a large scale?

– I found out during my vacation, when I received a call about Tesla’s extensive counteroffensive in Malmö. That’s where it started.

How did you react?

– I was a little surprised. I had, admittedly, prepared myself somewhat for the possibility that this might happen. It was included in our risk and impact analysis ahead of the escalated measures. But it happened very quickly.

Didn’t you try to stop them in any way at that point?

– That was one of the instructions I gave at the time: that we had to inform the other strikers about what had happened in Malmö. Then—though this is pure speculation on my part—I think that information may have led more people to decide to drop out.


Has IF Metall been involved in the buyouts in any way?

– No, we haven’t been involved in the buyouts. These have been individual agreements between a person and the company.

Have you encouraged strikers to accept Tesla’s offers?

– No. But if a person receives an offer, it’s not our job to tell them to say yes or no. Our job is to help the member.

Why did IF Metall choose the “yo-yo strike” strategy?

– This dispute had been going on for a very long time by then. We were in a situation where the National Mediation Office had withdrawn from the dispute, and none of our actions had directly threatened Tesla’s operations. We had to escalate our efforts. You can’t just let the situation fester and sit back and wait.

But several strikers say they were strongly opposed to the strategy and felt like pawns in a game. Weren’t their views important to listen to?

– As I recall, the criticism was more about the belief that the actions were ineffective. Then there were also some who felt exactly the opposite. I remember it very well, because opinions were very divided—there were two distinct camps. Everyone wanted the same thing, but had different ideas about how to get there.

A cynical speculation might be that the yo-yo strike was a way to make room for people to drop out or accept buyouts. What do you say to that?

– That it’s not true. If the union executive board had wanted to end the conflict, they would have done so. It’s very easy. The on-and-off strike was a way to increase the pressure on Tesla; otherwise, we’d just be standing there with all these 80 solidarity actions and a full work stoppage. The strike could then go on forever. That wouldn’t benefit anyone.

What was communication like with the members during the strike, and was it sufficient?

– When it comes to the “yo-yo” strike, there’s probably no other issue we’ve communicated about as extensively. We’ve had members from all over Sweden gather for a physical meeting, held several digital meetings, and had various conversations with the help of the local chapters.

– If anyone thinks the information has been inadequate, I can’t say that it hasn’t been. I can only say that, in my view, this has been our top priority at all times.

Criticism of the Union’s Tax Mistake

In February, IF Metall was reprimanded by the Swedish Tax Agency after paying taxes on the strikers’ strike pay. Instead, the strikers received the money in their tax accounts, but as a result, their SGI also became zero kronor.

[The mistake was that IF Metall treated strike pay as ordinary taxable salary, although Swedish law requires strike compensation to be tax-free.

The sequence was:

  1. IF Metall paid strike compensation to the mechanics.
  2. To protect their pensions and social-insurance entitlement, the union classified it as taxable income.
  3. It withheld income tax and paid employer contributions, as if the compensation were wages.
  4. The Swedish Tax Agency later ruled that this was unlawful: strike compensation must be tax-free, not merely “may be tax-free.”
  5. The tax payments were therefore reversed and refunded to the workers’ tax accounts.
  6. Once the compensation stopped being recognised as taxable earned income, the workers officially had little or no earned income for those years.

]

IF Metall urged everyone to return the money to IF Metall, while making it clear that they would cover any potential financial loss if anyone became ill or went on parental leave.

Several strikers say the tax issue became a turning point for their trust in IF Metall, and that they felt trapped in the strike by you. Looking back now, should you have done anything differently?

– I can understand why people reacted that way. But our goal was to protect members from the consequences of having zero income tax during a long conflict.

Now the strike is over. Tesla still doesn’t have a collective bargaining agreement. Is that a failure?

– This is a major disappointment, of course. But we had to take on this conflict. There was strong support among the members, and we had an important goal. That said, you can always do things differently or better.

What could you have done differently?

– There are plenty of things that could have been done differently. Above all, practical matters related to organizing the strike, and various details here and there. There’s certainly a lot we need to figure out.

Tesla’s buyout of striking members may possibly constitute a violation of the right to organize. Will you pursue that?

– No. There are no aggrieved members, so we can’t pursue that issue.

How will you evaluate these past years?

– I don’t know if it should be called a white paper, but we need to analyze everything, and that should be done by someone who isn’t directly involved with any of us. That’s how we’ll achieve the best possible results.

What do you personally take away from this?

– A lot. This has been a very unique conflict, and we’ve learned a great deal. There are definitely things we’ll do differently next time.

Janna Ayres