Although germany recently ended up introducing a legal minimum wage because an other US corp was being too shit about it (I don’t remember if it was amazon or something like walmart).
This is very different from the neoliberal argument against minimum wages which boils down to "if we need to pay workers a livable wage our profit margins would be tighter" or more charitably "if we need to pay workers a livable wage some jobs would become unprofitable and we'd have to lay those people off" (which only holds true when the jobs are non-essential to the company in such a way that laying people off doesn't mean outsourcing them - a lot of low-paying jobs are absolutely essential to business operations but are seen as cost centers because they don't directly contribute to revenue).
The reason the EU is "pushing for minimum wages" is that the EU pushed for the liberalisation of markets in EU countries some twenty years ago (and its various extensions thereof) and that led to an increase in wealth gaps, a loss of income security, gutting of social welfare systems and the proliferation of temp work agencies (which e.g. in Germany were illegal up to that point and offer an easy way to sidestep unions). Minimum wage is a bandaid for the gashing wound left by market liberalisation.
This is beside the point of what a legal minimum wage is, orthogonal with negotiations through unions, and has nothing to do with liberalisation.
There is no reason for Sweden not to have a legal minimum wage. From an outsider's POV this really seems to be psycho-rigid stance "no our system does not need one!" when it actually does not hurt the system or negotiations through unions at all.
In a way, I think what's happening with Tesla is making noise because it's putting them on the spot. They are running around crying "but you can't do that!!" because the fact is that actually Tesla can and that's exposing the weakness of the whole system, which is actually informal and not backed by law at all.
That's not saying that Tesla won't back down and reach a deal with the unions, but they are only doing what they are entitled to do.
As others have pointed out, you seem to misunderstand what laws are and what they are for. They're not special and they're not magic, they're just slightly more rigid frames padded with layers of contracts and ultimately held together by good will.
To put it another way: a law can not stop me from killing you. Gun laws can make it more difficult for me to acquire a suitable weapon to do so, laws requiring the presence of an armed police officer at every corner may make it more difficult without having to deal with the police officer first, or immigration laws may make it more difficult to reach you, and murder being illegal means I'm very likely to suffer consequences after killing you (or after failing to do so if the attempt is illegal) but if I'm in front of you with a loaded gun in my hand, what's stopping me from killing you isn't the law.
I'm not saying Tesla can't do things differently as long as they operate within the law. I'm not even arguing whether its immoral for them to do so[0]. I'm just saying that laws are in the most real sense of the word socially constructed and they're an artefact of society, not the other way around. If laws are in conflict with a society's understanding of justice, eventually the laws will change, one way or another.
[0]: It is, although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone - which is fine, of course, in terms of it being possible for your ethical system to be internally consistent. It just makes me think less of you as a human.
