Working environment

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report and the rejection of the motions. In the committee report, we in the Sweden Democrats also have a specific statement explaining our position.

Madam Speaker! The year 2026 has not started well. Several workplace accidents with fatal outcomes have already occurred. Work environment work is vital. No one should die at or as a result of their work. Work environment work must function both regionally and locally, and more people should be given the opportunity to participate in it. We must tighten the regulatory framework, but we must also ensure that the existing regulatory framework is followed, not least to combat the work-life crime that is spreading in society.

Workplace crime consists of deliberate actions that involve the exploitation of employees and where healthy competition is undermined. Workplace crime can, among other things, include violations of the work environment regulations and can, for example, involve work without a permit, work with unsafe working conditions and reduced protection for employees. Work environment and workplace crime are thus today two issues that are very closely linked.

Labor market crime means that an operator deliberately violates rules and agreements in the labor market at the expense of employees, other companies, or the public. The most serious cases of labor market crime include crimes such as human trafficking, human exploitation, work environment crimes, benefit fraud, tax crimes, and other economic crimes. Labor market crime is particularly prominent within the construction, cleaning, restaurant, and transport industries. It now also occurs within health and social care. It is characterized by fraud, rule violations, and crime in the labor market, but also by a cynical exploitation of our welfare system.

Madam Speaker! The nearly eight years of passivity, during which the previous government could not agree on anything regarding the issue, has unfortunately meant that Sweden as a country has fallen behind in the fight against the organized crime that fuels crime in the labor market. But the Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, have pushed forward. We have begun changes, among others within the secrecy legislation, to increase the possibility for our cooperating authorities to cooperate and share essential information with one another. We are toughening the penalties. We are extending the limitation periods, something that has been requested for two parliamentary terms. But more needs to be done in these issues, and the work continues forward.

Gross labor market crime usually remains outside the established collective bargaining model. This places new demands, not least on politics. The crime is also international in nature, both because foreign workers are exploited and because operators can have connections to and operate in several different countries. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the fight against illegal immigration becomes extremely important, as it concerns individuals who are cynically exploited by the criminal actors in the labor market and is one of their most important tools. For this reason, it can be seen as remarkable that large parts of the opposition strongly oppose proposals regarding, among other things, the reporting obligation, while at the same time claiming that they want to take a firm stand in the fight against labor market crime.

Madam Speaker! One cannot debate the working environment without mentioning the role of the safety representatives in our workplaces. It is primarily about the local safety representatives, whose numbers are constantly decreasing despite a recovery in certain industries. Within TCO and Saco, an increase in safety representatives is occurring, but unfortunately, it goes in the other direction within the LO occupations, which is very regrettable. One of the biggest reasons is the decreased trade union membership within LO occupations. I am the first to deplore that decrease. Another major reason is the Social Democrats' and LO leadership's politicization of trade unions, which today actually threatens not only our Swedish model and the equal partners in it but also the future work on the working environment. The fewer people who engage and want to be active, the more difficult it becomes to maintain an equal working environment effort.

I actually intended to stop here, Madam Speaker, but I choose to proceed in the discussion. Now it is an election year, and it has become public who stands on the lists in our municipalities. Last week I received a call from a female member who has been a safety representative for several years but who now has to leave her assignment at an industry in Central Sweden. The only justification she received was that she stood on the Sweden Democrats' ballot in her municipality and, according to the union's chief safety representative, represented a party that wants to abolish all safety representatives. It is purely horrific, Madam Speaker, to hear the answer she received. It is a pure lie. The Sweden Democrats want, on the contrary, that everyone who has their colleagues' trust should be able to become a safety representative. I received two such calls last week.

Now I am going to stick my chin out a bit, but this is what I stand for. To exclude and register opinions of workers solely because they have the wrong party book are pure Stasi methods that definitely do not belong in a democratic society. One often has a high tail-following from the Social Democrats and is quick to label everything and everyone as threats to democracy. But to act undemocratically oneself, one definitely has no problem with that. We saw it in the 2014 election campaign, we saw it in the workplaces in the 2018 election campaign, and we will see it in the workplaces in the 2026 election campaign as well.

These are people who have their colleagues' trust and who have commitment to the issues. That must be the deciding factor. We have two representatives for the Social Democrats in this debate. They are welcome to explain to the chamber why a Sweden Democrat worker who sits in the municipal council is less capable as a safety representative than a colleague who sits in the same council for the Social Democrats. And do not blame LO, as is usually done! Everyone knows that the LO leadership sits in the Social Democrats' party board and executive committee. When Magdalena Andersson tells them to jump, they usually ask how high they should jump. Everyone knows that it is part of the Social Democrats' strategy to discredit the Sweden Democrats; they do not want to legalize active Sweden Democrats in our workplaces. I think this is very regrettable.

Madam Speaker! In order to achieve a good and safe working environment, it is important that we all work together – broadly within politics but also jointly between employer and employee organizations. We in the Sverigedemokraterna will continue the work of developing the working environment policy in future political collaborations and will therefore return to these issues in the future, both in government and in opposition.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Arkhem and Sara Gille (both SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Before the 2022 election, the Sweden Democrats promised to be the guarantor of the Swedish welfare. But the work environment problems continue to grow in the welfare, even though the Sweden Democrats are now the largest party in the government support.

According to Försäkringskassan, mental ill-health is today the most common cause of sick leave. There is an increase, especially in welfare professions. It concerns stress, high workload and a lack of recovery. Research shows that responsible managers lack time, mandate and resources to work preventatively.

Working conditions need to improve, and more people need to be employed in the welfare sector. That is what I think – and also the Sverigedemokraterna, as it appeared when I checked the party's website.

But the government that the Sweden Democrats support has consistently underfunded the welfare system. They have not increased the state grants to municipalities and regions to the extent that would have been required to compensate for inflation.

I want to ask Magnus Persson in what way he means that the Sverigedemokraterna have been the guarantor of the welfare and how they have worked to improve the working conditions in care and healthcare, as was promised to be done before the election.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is first and foremost a municipal and regional issue. If you break down this statistics, it becomes very interesting. The worst working conditions are actually in municipalities governed by Social Democrats. In Malmö city, the model municipality for many Social Democrats, there are very large problems specifically within elderly care. In my own home municipality, where the Social Democrats also govern, there are enormous recruitment problems.

Then, of course, the state must do its job. I think the Sweden Democrats have pushed quite a lot in these issues. I am not going to talk about our negotiations behind the scenes here in the chamber. But I stand by the fact that the Sweden Democrats have been a guarantor in these issues. It could have looked significantly worse.

It is however noteworthy that the municipalities make themselves so dependent on the state grants that these constitute the most important way to get the own welfare in order.

Municipalities have their own right of taxation. This question, Johanna Haraldsson can take with her municipal councilors in her municipalities, so I will take it with my municipal councilors. I am quite certain that it is going very well within the welfare sector today in those municipalities that are governed by the Sweden Democrats.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The working conditions in the welfare sector are very challenging. Therefore, there are also difficulties in recruiting.

Now Magnus Persson is speaking about the right of taxation for municipalities and regions. At the same time, the government is preparing proposals that would prevent or create worse conditions for municipalities and regions to raise their taxes if they were to need to. What the Sverigedemokraterna say and the policy that is then implemented do not quite align.

We Social Democrats, unlike the Sweden Democrats and the government, have consistently prioritized welfare, while the SD government has preferred to lower taxes, and mostly for those who already have high incomes. We have invested billions more than the government and the Sweden Democrats every year in our budget motions. We see exactly the glaring need to be able to hire more people and create better working conditions in welfare.

I wonder why the Sweden Democrats, despite wanting to appear as the guarantor of the welfare, have not succeeded in getting the rest of the Tidö parties on board with a funding that would make a difference in the welfare. One can conclude that it was perhaps just something they said that was then not so important. Despite the Sweden Democrats' guarantees, around the country one has been forced to cut back on healthcare and elderly care and lay off staff when the money has not been sufficient.

Was not the Sweden Democrats' promise worth more than that it could be negotiated away when the government waved something else that might have been higher priority for the Sweden Democrats, an increased return migration grant or perhaps a tax cut for the richest?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clearly noticeable that Johanna Haraldsson is trying to blame the failure in the municipalities and regions where the Social Democrats rule on the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's policy. That is not true.

We can take an example from a municipality that is doing very well with welfare. In Staffanstorp, the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna are in power. There, they chose now, when they received a fairly large budget surplus, to distribute a bonus to all employees within the healthcare and elderly care staff because they had done a good job.

So one can do that if one manages one's finances. But if one mismanages one's finances in municipalities and regions, one can never do that. If we break it down and start looking at which municipalities have the biggest problems, Madam Speaker, it is predominantly Social Democratic-led municipalities. We have, for example, Region Stockholm, which today is a ward of the state.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations number 9 and 20.

Report after report from authorities and trade unions, and in reports and article series, describes what the working environment for Swedish wage earners looks like. It is exposure to toxic dust at recycling companies, deficient work methods, and protective equipment that does not protect against deadly substances within the industry.

It is recurring work accidents and vibration injuries within the construction industry, and stress and high workload that make people sick in the Swedish welfare state. There is great vulnerability and harassment within restaurants and trade, and threats and violence in almost all industries.

It is extensive crime in the working life. This is something that my colleague Adrian Magnusson will speak more about in his speech in this debate.

The same picture of reality that exists in the reports and articles recurs in the conversations I have with union representatives and safety representatives. It is very tough in many parts to work on the Swedish labor market. New risks for ill health and accidents constantly challenge the work for a safe and secure working environment.

Madam Speaker! One of the clearest examples is home care. Statistics from the Swedish Work Environment Authority show that home care staff are one of the most exposed occupational groups. They have twice as many reported occupational diseases and work accidents as the average.

The women who carry one of welfare's most important tasks, to take care of our elderly, are exposed daily to an unsustainable work environment that makes it so they cannot manage to work full-time.

Many work alone at a high pace under strong pressure. Heavy lifting in cramped homes takes a toll, and many go home from work with aches in their bodies. Psychological pressure, threats, and violence are significantly more common here than in several other occupations.

These are people who go to work to take care of others and to provide care and create safety and dignity for the elderly who are dependent on their support in everyday life. They all too often pay the price with their own health.

Madam Speaker! Even though home care is severely affected, it is not an exception. Similar problems recur in large parts of the welfare system. When the Swedish Work Environment Authority inspected our acute hospitals, it turned out that eight out of ten hospitals do not meet the requirements of the Work Environment Act to prevent unhealthy workloads.

Managers lack time, resources, knowledge, and mandate to work preventatively. The consequence is that staff and patients are affected. This is recurring. In workplaces where the work environment work is lacking, it is often about exactly this. There is a lack of prioritization, resources, and knowledge from the employer's side.

Madam Speaker! Almost one person a week dies in Swedish workplaces. Every year, several thousand die prematurely as a result of diseases and injuries caused by deficiencies in the work environment. I mean that it is not worthy of a modern Swedish labor market.

At the same time, we must remember that very good work is being done. In many workplaces, employers, employees, and safety representatives work together daily to prevent injuries, accidents, and ill health. There, the systematic work environment management functions in practice.

But it is not enough that it works at some workplaces. It must work at all of them. It is not just about protecting the employees. It is also about protecting serious employers from being competed out by those who cheat with the work environment.

Madam Speaker! The employer has full responsibility for creating a healthy and safe working environment. But today, only half of those who work in Sweden experience that deficiencies in the working environment are addressed in a good way.

That is where the political responsibility comes in. We need the political government to expand the controls, tighten the regulatory framework, and create clear incentives for employers to do what is required. In that regard, I mean that the Tidö government has not done enough.

As we now approach the end of the parliamentary term, we can state that far too little has been done to improve the working environment in Swedish workplaces. At the same time, other policy areas have been prioritized. In those areas, proposals have been submitted at a rapid pace. This shows that it is not a matter of inability. It is a matter of priorities.

When the government took office in 2022, there were finished and investigated proposals on the table. There were proposals that the organizational and social work environment risks should be given the same weight as the physical risks by giving Arbetsmiljöverket the possibility to impose sanction fees when employers do not meet the requirements.

There were proposals to link sanctions to the systematic work environment management so that there are consequences if one does not perform the risk assessments and the measures that are needed. We know that many serious accidents could have been prevented if one had done exactly this.

There were proposals for an expanded duty of care so that it becomes clear who bears the responsibility in workplaces with many actors.

There were proposals to strengthen the use of occupational health services in preventive work.

There were proposals to clarify the employer's responsibility for harassment from third parties.

There were proposals to strengthen the regional safety representatives' opportunities to reach more workplaces.

I understand that this sounds like a rambling of many things, but it was quite a lot. All these proposals were present, and all were investigated and referred. But they have not been taken further by the Tidöregeringen. Instead, it has ordered an investigation into whether safety representatives should actually be appointed by the union.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the fact that we Social Democrats stand by the position that the proposals we submitted in 2022 need to be implemented, we want that occupational health and safety offenses should be able to lead to business prohibitions. We want to appoint a crisis commission against fatal accidents, and we want to strengthen the resources of the welfare system. At the same time, we Social Democrats have repeatedly during the parliamentary term proposed more resources for Arbetsmiljöverket and the regional safety representatives in order to strengthen the control.

Madam Speaker! The investigation into a new work environment strategy states that the current strategy has had a limited impact on the government's work and that it has, in practice, not been used to guide policy. At the same time, a new strategy has not been prioritized highly enough to be presented to the Riksdag in time, even though the old one expired at the turn of the year.

In reports and reviews, the problems have been clearly described year after year. Nevertheless, the government has not taken sufficient initiatives to address the problems. It is therefore not knowledge that is lacking. The problems are well known, but no political solutions have been put into action.

Again: According to me and the Socialdemokraterna, sharper requirements, more frequent controls, more inspectors, stronger safety representatives, and resources that make it possible to work sustainably are needed. The problems are therefore not new, and the solutions exist. What is missing is political will.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have that will. We are prepared to take responsibility for a work environment policy based on the workers' reality, where no one should become ill, be injured, or die from their job. Fundamentally, it is about something that should be completely obvious. We are prepared to take this responsibility, but for that, a new direction and a Social Democratic government are required.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johanna Haraldsson, for the speech!

Johanna Haraldsson has on several occasions said in the media that the government does not prioritize the working environment but only lowers taxes. These are astonishing statements.

The government continues to sharpen, refine, and develop the policy that the S-government actually introduced in many respects. These comments therefore become a kind of failing grade for yourselves. It is common for the opposition to criticize the government, but this is a new level. It is very strange.

The government has allocated 100 million to Arbetsmiljöverket. We are conducting a more accurate, more ambitious, and sharper form of inspections at the workplaces where the risks are greatest. During 2025, Arbetsmiljöverket carried out nearly 30,000 inspections, and the number of joint agency inspections increased by as much as 11 percent. Dangerous jobs have been stopped, and more police reports have been filed.

We have a national strategy against crime with 45 measures. Nine authorities cooperate, and we have seven regional centers. A revolution is occurring within the justice area. It was eight lost years when we did not get through the proposals that, among other things, could have been effective in the crime area.

We will also ensure that more safety representatives can be recruited. A new work environment strategy is underway. The Government has taken decisive action. My speaking time is not sufficient to explain everything. We are not finished, but everything is nevertheless moving in the right direction.

My question is: What is Johanna Haraldsson's analysis? Why could the S-led government over eight years not implement the improvements that this government is now making?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It becomes very contradictory when Saila Quicklund starts by saying that the government continues on the path set by the S-led government, only to then go back and say that we did nothing. It is quite astonishing.

The S-led government took a good number of new initiatives. We appointed a number of investigations, exactly all those that I listed here. We prepared for all these initiatives. You speak of a strategy against crime against working life. It was initiated by the Social Democratic government. We want it to be reviewed and updated, for example – something that this government has not done.

We need to continue to step up. The appropriations to Arbetsmiljöverket are very good. But requirements must also be placed on the authority so that it actually does what one wants it to do.

In 2019, before the pandemic, 27,715 physical inspections were carried out. This can be compared with 2025, when 24,942 physical inspections were carried out. To that, of course, the remote inspections must be added. I believe it is important that requirements are also set when funds are provided and when speaking about what one wants the authority to use the funds for.

We Social Democrats want to increase control on the labor market, and I am convinced that the Moderates also want that. But then one must also set requirements. Therefore, we have set a goal for the upcoming parliamentary term: We want the Swedish Work Environment Authority to increase inspections and perform 10,000 more every year so that we can truly see results from the funds we allocate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker and Johanna Haraldsson! It is easy in opposition to wish for more resources for the Work Environment Authority and more work environment inspectors. Johanna Haraldsson expresses this wish in the newspaper Arbetarskydd.

The truth is, as I said earlier, that the government has added 100 million. A major reorganization has also been carried out within Arbetsmiljöverket. Both Johanna Haraldsson and I sit on the oversight council and received this information as recently as last week.

It should be seen as an investment when the Agency for Occupational Health Knowledge and the Swedish Work Environment Authority are now merged. We get research linked to operational activities; it is a fantastic solution that this government is now developing. As I also said earlier, the result has been that the joint agency inspections have increased by a full 11 percent. We should see this as an investment.

We have also refined and improved the knowledge of the inspectors and, through a mandate from the government, ensured that they have sufficient industry knowledge to be able to go out into the various industries. The quality is thus being raised.

What I am saying is that the government strengthens, improves, and develops what the Social Democrats initially did. What was done was commendable, but we are significantly improving the quality. I also want to emphasize what the government is doing in the justice area. It is, as I said, something of a revolution in the area that is being carried out to address the occupational crime that exists.

I also sit on the Police Authority's oversight council and know what this has brought about. We see fantastic effects of the government having released the secrecy between agencies so that they can cooperate. This was not done by the S-government, and one can wonder why. But now a lot is being done in the area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually did not perceive any question in Saila Quicklund's last reply.

I can say, however, that we agree on the direction, but not enough rule reinforcements are being made. It is those I am calling for. Saila Quicklund has previously highlighted the possibility of sanctions, but during this parliamentary term, the government has not introduced any new such measures. That has been left undone.

I mean that the pace of reform in the area of the working environment has been far too low. We see at the same time that the government, in very many other areas, has practically spat out reform proposals, but in the area of the working environment, it stands still.

I think it is very good that the government continues to strengthen Arbetsmiljöverket, but we have seen that we needed to do even more in that area. Despite the reinforcements that this government has made, the authority has namely not reached the same level of number of inspections as one had before the pandemic.

We have also not at all succeeded in hiring the amount of work environment inspectors that we would need to be in parity with the size of the labor market that we have in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you, in all quietness, of the conduct in the chamber. If a "you" or something of the sort comes up, I usually do not speak up immediately, but I can still remind you of it. Now that we are almost finished with this mandate period, there is reason to remember just this. We have, after all, practiced for quite a long time!

(cont.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)