Working environment and working hours

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating AU8 Working Environment and Working Hours. I begin by moving to approve the proposal in the committee report.

Work environment issues are important issues that affect and involve very many employees, employers and parties. A safe and developing work environment is central for a well-functioning and vital labor market and welfare. A good work environment is also important for a safer Sweden. This applies to both the individual and society as a whole. The development of the work environment at our workplaces affects both growth and employment as well as the opportunities for good, equitable and equal health. The work environment also has great importance for how long people can, have the strength and want to work. This is important considering the demographic development we now have in Sweden.

There are questions that we have followed for many years. I am speaking of fatal accidents in our workplaces. Unfortunately, we cannot see any improvements in that area.

From Arbetsmiljöverket's statistics, it appears that a total of 63 people died due to fatal accidents at work in Sweden during 2023. Among the industries most affected by accidents is construction, with 17 of the 63 deaths. The 5 who died in an elevator accident north of Stockholm are included there, even though they actually belong to the metal work group. Thus, there were 12 within construction and civil engineering. Forestry and agriculture had 6 deceased, transport 9, and the manufacturing industry 7. These groupings are also counted among the most accident-affected.

For nearly six years in the Committee on Employment, I have started my speeches with the following: No one should have to die as a result of their work. Every fatal accident is a tragedy for those involved and their relatives. A workplace accident with a fatal outcome is unacceptable in a modern working life.

For the Moderates and the Moderate-led government, this is an important issue. Powerful measures are required for us to be able to see a reduction in the number of deaths in working life. The government has therefore intensified the work against workplace accidents. I would like to give some examples.

Working environment and working hours

Arbetsmiljöverket has been tasked with carrying out more unannounced physical inspections. The appropriation has been increased, and more inspectors are being recruited and trained now. However, the focus is not only on the number of controls but also on visiting the right companies. The focus is now on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Arbetsmiljöverket has also been tasked with investigating how to get more people to want to engage as safety representatives. This applies to all safety representatives. Collaboration takes place during the process with the labor market's parties.

An investigation regarding the regional safety representatives and their activities is ongoing. The referral process has taken place, and the matter is now being prepared at the Government Offices.

The government continues with the previous government's work environment strategy for 2021-2025. It includes a so-called zero vision against fatal accidents. The zero vision is expanded by that no one shall die because of their job.

The Work Environment Forum, where labor market partners and authorities collaborate, continues its work.

The Swedish Work Environment Authority is investigating the sanction fee system. This is planned to be completed during 2024.

The supplier control investigation has examined the possibilities to, for example, limit the number of subcontractors. The report is now being prepared at the Government Offices. The Ministry of Finance and Erik Slottner are responsible.

We are also looking at expanded liability. This is being prepared at the Government Offices.

A criminal justice reform investigation has been initiated and will be presented in May 2025. Police, prosecutors and the Swedish Work Environment Authority are collaborating and have developed joint agency routines.

The Swedish Work Environment Authority has initiated a project for work environment knowledge in primary and secondary schools. It is a Nordic cooperation.

A new regulatory structure has been developed by Arbetsmiljöverket where 67 regulations and general advice are reduced to 15, which will be clearer and easier to read. This is also the goal of the measure. This will be introduced on 1 January 2025.

A bill on a new law on the duty to provide information has been submitted.

The government also continues the work with the previous government's strategy against crime against the working life and has thereby extended the mandate for nine agencies to cooperate against precisely crime against the working life. Today, there are seven work-crime centers that are staffed. A coordinator is present at every office in the country. Add to that two national coordinators and 32 inspectors linked to a-krim.

The Delegation against crime in the working life has received a new assignment to analyze the setups used within so-called vulnerable companies. They are to submit proposals for measures.

The list of the government's measures in the area of the working environment can be long, and the measures I have now mentioned are just a few examples.

The Work Environment Authority means that the employer's responsibility for the work environment is and shall be great. One must ensure that work environment work is naturally included in the operations. It is an important part. The Swedish work environment legislation is also based on the employer cooperating with the employees in order to create a safe and good work environment. The systematic work environment work is also continued to be the basis for a good work environment.

Another thing that is worrying, however, is that work-related accidents are increasing. The statistics show that the number of reported work-related accidents, both with and without absence, increased during 2023, which is the latest full year with complete statistics, compared to 2022. The total number increased from 35,000 to 38,000 in 2023. The most common cause of work-related accidents with absence for men was losing control over a machine, tool, or transport equipment. Among women, fall accidents were the most common cause of absence.

It is however pleasing that the number of occupational diseases has decreased to a total of barely 12,000 reports. Seen by occupation and industry branch, however, those employed in healthcare and education were particularly exposed to ailments as a result of work. Among nursing assistants, nearly every other one - 48 percent - had ailments as a result of work.

The demographic development requires many more employees for the healthcare sector, and if recruitment to these important sectors is to be possible, the working environment conditions must be significantly improved. The Moderates have, through committee motions over many years, put forward that we want to see an increased number of inspections and follow-ups of the work environment work, opportunities for sanctions, and reinforced educational efforts within just this sector. Listening to the staff who are in the sector daily is also very important. In the Tidö Agreement, there are provisions that improvements in the working environment shall take place within the healthcare sector.

Companies and other operations want to do the right thing, but they also need guidance in this. This is pointed out during many of the company visits that I myself have conducted. The level of knowledge regarding legislation, rules, and relevant measures to improve the work environment is sometimes very low. There is potential for improvement here, as many want and need support in the work.

Madam Speaker! Issues regarding the working environment are constantly relevant. Despite a difficult situation, it is good that they are getting more and more space in the public debate. The Government takes these issues very seriously and continues its offensive work so that everyone can, want to, and have the strength to work.

(Applause)

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In December, we Social Democrats submitted our proposal for a crisis commission that would conduct a total review of the construction industry and develop measures to prevent more deaths at those workplaces. We wanted the government to act quickly and forcefully.

Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet has also demanded a crisis commission, and they, among others, have insight into what the situation in the construction industry looks like. They also argue that a review of the entire industry is required to address the systemic errors that year after year lead to serious accidents and deaths. All opposition parties stood behind our proposal, but the government parties and Sverigedemokraterna did not want a crisis commission.

Why was it so important for the Moderaterna to dilute and make our proposal for a crisis commission completely ineffective? What was it that made you have to postpone the decision for four months? Even the Moderaterna must see that the construction industry has specific challenges that need to be addressed to create safer workplaces.

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! When one hears Johanna Haraldsson, one could believe that the high number of fatal accidents is something new. It was a dark year in 2023. The fatal accidents are far too many. On average, there has been one death per week over the years.

We all have an interest in that this is addressed. The previous government, the S government, actually made many good efforts. We have continued with them, but obviously it has not been enough. We have seen that occupational diseases have increased by 50 percent and that the fatal accidents average one per week. There are ongoing, good efforts.

Why establish a crisis commission that would only center around the construction industry? We know that, for example, the construction and civil engineering sector had twelve deaths, transport nine, agriculture and forestry seven, and industry six. Many other industries are also exposed to fatal accidents. Why then examine the construction industry unilaterally?

One can play with words. I wonder why it was so important that it should be called the crisis commission. In our proposal, we say that we want the government to take measures to highlight the underlying causes of the increased number of fatal accidents in working life. We want all industries that are exposed to be included. We had a significantly broader wording because we know that fatal accidents occur to a large extent in other areas as well.

Why did the Social Democrats only concentrate on the construction side? We wanted the same thing, but we Moderates had a breadth and used the word illuminate instead of calling it a crisis commission. The member may be welcome to answer that.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! One can also ask why it was so important for the Moderaterna and the government parties not to call it a crisis commission. It is actually perfectly permissible for the government to appoint a crisis commission for the severely affected construction industry, which we know has specific challenges. We know that there are short construction times, companies without their own employees, long chains of subcontractors, procurement that prioritizes the lowest price, and so on. This has been shown to make construction sites much more dangerous than all other workplaces. The government can indeed both appoint a crisis commission and increase focus - or however it was that the Moderaterna wanted to express it - on other industries.

I think it is problematic. We could have reached an agreement on a broad solution. We Social Democrats extended our hand and wanted to compromise with the government parties on how such a crisis commission could be implemented. But it was obviously more important to keep the government parties together than to meet with us and address the problems in the construction industry.

It appears in the debate that the issue of safety in the country's workplaces is not particularly highly prioritized. Could it be that the companies' freedom and profits are more important than cleaning up in the construction industry and stopping the fatal accidents? I return to the question of why it was so important to stop our crisis commission.

(Applause)

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johanna Haraldsson for this.

I must repeat what I said in my previous post. The difference was, therefore, the word crisis commission and that we only centered via your proposal on the construction industry.

I repeat that the construction industry has had twelve deaths, the transport industry has had nine, and the agriculture and forestry industry has had seven. It is therefore several industries that would need a review. That was our proposal – a significantly better and broader approach than the Social Democrats'.

I agree with the member that it is extremely central that we work on precisely the security issues. In that regard, I must return to the fact that the government is now investing enormous resources and is truly trying to ensure that we get more safety representatives. Safety representatives have a very important function in the labor market.

The Social Democrats have fought very much for the regional safety representatives and the connection to the union, but not for local safety representatives. Our government has now given a mandate to the Work Environment Authority to see how we can get more local safety representatives. It is important in this context. What measures did the Social Democratic government take to get more local safety representatives? I know the member cannot answer that now. But it is still something the member can take away, and we perhaps can take this up in a later exchange of remarks.

But the government is making, as I said in my speech, a large number of interventions. And we think we received a broader scope in our writing with more industries, where it is almost the same order of magnitude in the number of deaths. The Social Democrats had a narrower version. I find it perhaps more strange that we did not receive support for our proposal. But it was more important for the Social Democrats to have just a crisis commission than for us to get a broader illumination of the number of fatal accidents.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 12.

No one should have to die at work. This is a powerful and important reminder of the importance of a good working environment, safety, and security. We should strive to create workplaces where everyone can work safely and healthily, as well as improve working conditions and reduce the risk of accidents and injuries in the workplace. And here, Madam Speaker, the local safety representative plays an important role.

In line with the committee, we view positively that the government has tasked the Swedish Work Environment Authority with submitting proposals on measures, approaches, initiatives or similar that can lead to more employees wanting to engage in the role of safety representative, as there is currently a shortage in numerous workplaces.

We were able to see a report in the newspaper Arbetet where, according to the Work Environment Authority, local safety representatives are missing in six out of ten inspections. These are frightening figures that show that we have a serious problem on the Swedish labor market. Why does it turn out like this? Where are the safety representatives? Is political power over the workplace more important than the work environment work? The questions are many, and they demand answers.

Madam Speaker! According to today's model, social democratically governed trade unions have the right of priority to appoint local safety representatives, which unfortunately leads to a large number of wage earners being excluded from taking on the role of safety representative.

We Sweden Democrats oppose this politicization of the work environment work and take the political discrimination that our and other political representatives are subjected to seriously after they have been elected to positions of trust by their employees. This happens often across the entire country.

No one has said that trade unions do not play an important role in work environment work and they shall, of course, be a part of it even in the future. Strong trade unions are important for our Swedish labor market model. There is no doubt about this, and no one has claimed anything else, even if some claim so.

But unfortunately, it can be clearly stated that one has not succeeded in meeting the need for local safety representatives, which is a direct consequence of the declining level of organization, particularly within the LO unions. And most people know the reason for that.

More and more workers today choose to vote for a party other than the Social Democrats. Naturally, they do not want their unions to require socialist values in order for one to become a safety representative, which is pure folly. For it is not the color of the party book that determines whether you have the competence or not? It is about what your colleagues want and what commitment and interest you have in the issues?

Madam Speaker! Then one must dare to lift one's gaze and look at complementary solutions, which is the basis for the proposal that is now on the table and being investigated. It shall be seen as a complement to the current working order.

The Sweden Democrats' focus lies on wage earners all over the country who risk their lives when they go to work. Our focus lies on the relatives who receive news of workplace accidents that could have been avoided.

Contrary to the Social Democrats, we do not place any political prestige on this as it is obvious to us. The local work environment work must be carried out at every workplace in the entire country. It must take precedence over Social Democratic, cynical party politics, where the effect has unfortunately shown to be a deteriorated work environment effort. This is a very strong indication of the lack of local safety representatives. Thousands of local safety representatives are missing in Sweden. Why is it that way?

That is not enough. In the long run, one puts the Swedish model at stake with such actions, a model that is built on equal partners. Reduced degree of organization weakens one of the parties, and it is the responsibility of LO's leadership to get more people to engage. Either one chooses to stand up for all its members, or one chooses the Socialdemokraternas shrinking pots of meat. It is not harder than that.

Madam Speaker! The fight against crime in the working life must be strengthened, and the tools must be increased. But first, one must ask the question: Why did it become like this, and why is the construction industry so vulnerable? It is rooted in several things.

EU accession in 1995 facilitated free movement, and it took on a completely new meaning in 2004 when ten new countries, primarily from Eastern Europe, became members of the union.

The subsequent extreme boom led to an enormous demand for cheap labor that flooded into Sweden completely uncontrolled. Fortunately, we received a tightening via lex Laval and better control over posted labor, despite strong opposition from certain parties in this chamber. It is only to be regretted. I am glad that the Sverigedemokraterna were the deciding factor in that vote.

The consequence was then, unfortunately, that the large construction companies changed their way of working, streamlined their organization and relied to a greater extent on subcontractors and posted labor. It is a way of working that, unfortunately, has persisted.

Madam Speaker! The work has begun, and much has happened: a-krim centers, reduced secrecy between authorities, and stricter rules regarding labor immigration. But what else can be done? It could involve the Work Environment Authority's supervision of reports to the posting register and increased requirements for the main contractors to ensure this is handled correctly.

It could involve an increased responsibility regarding ID06 and electronic personnel registers as well as unannounced inspections in case of suspicion of cheating. Today, the workplace is often notified in advance when it is time for an inspection. That is a working procedure that we absolutely cannot have.

It can also be about reviewing and tightening the regulatory framework in order to be able to exclude unserious employers, while at the same time the requirements on public procurers are tightened.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats agree with the Social Democrats that the regulatory framework regarding the long chains of subcontractors should be reviewed. But for the Social Democrats to propose only two is not serious in the current situation, as many construction companies cannot provide all the services required in a larger construction contract. Here, the regulatory framework must first be tightened so that the same responsibility rests on both the main contractor and the subcontractors.

The requirement for the principal must be tightened. The question of regulations regarding subcontractors must be investigated thoroughly, as such a proposal, as it is formulated today, would hit hard even against many serious Swedish small business owners. Today, much on a Swedish construction site revolves around specialists and specialist companies, and they do not grow on trees. Subcontractors must therefore be included, and it will never be enough with just two. It is simply a matter of tightening the requirements.

The upcoming law on the reporting obligation regarding illegal immigrants will also become a tool, as we know that many companies in the gray zone exploit illegal immigrants in their operations. If one can address this abuse, it makes it harder for these companies to be able to exist and operate in Sweden. The Social Democrats were on the ball there once, but they withdrew this proposal. It is only to be regretted. Otherwise, it could have been implemented today.

Give the authorities a chance to prosecute the criminal companies! Here, extended prescription periods for workplace environment crimes are an important aspect. It is fundamentally a Social Democratic proposal that is now being voted against solely because the Sweden Democrats are driving the issue. It also could have been in place for a long time. It would have made things much easier.

Fraud and abuse must unconditionally lead to a business ban in Sweden. Foreign companies that cheat must be expelled from the country. It is not even negotiable.

There is also a great responsibility on the parties to review the collective agreements and make them transparent and easy to manage, and to reduce the loopholes so that they are not exploited for cheating. Today, people actually use the collective agreements to cheat when it comes to minimum wage levels and so on, and it is simply regrettable.

Madam Speaker! We shall also speak a little about working hours, and it is an important and current issue.

We note that the EU's working time directive creates problems on the Swedish labor market. The directive regulates daily rest and is intended as a protection for workers' health and safety. But at the same time, many Swedish operations are built around collectively agreed working hours that violate the directive.

The European Commission has questioned whether such collective agreements are compatible with the EU's working time directive. Unlike the committee, we believe there are reasons for the government to be significantly more active, so that the Swedish parties' agreements can apply without restriction in Sweden.

We therefore consider that the government should take measures to assist the parties in the labor market to a significantly greater extent than today and act in both Sweden and Brussels for a national and permanent exemption from the EU's working time directive.

Madam Speaker! Reduced working hours is an issue that is being debated extensively today. Many parties and even trade unions are pushing for it to be codified in law. And that would have been perfect in the best of worlds, as everyone wants to work less and earn more. That is how man is created. But is legislation the right way to go in the current situation? How will it work in municipalities and regions that are already struggling with poor finances and staff shortages?

It is already today free for private companies to reduce working hours with maintained salary if they wish. Municipalities and regions can also themselves, within their operations, negotiate reduced working hours with maintained salary if they wish.

Today, much is regulated through the party negotiations. How much should we restrict the Swedish model? There are many question marks that need to be clarified. A proposal like this must be thoroughly investigated and not be used as pure election pork before an upcoming election. The question is far too complex and complicated for that.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to ask a different question to Magnus Persson, but I feel compelled to respond somewhat to the remarks that came from Magnus Persson from the rostrum regarding the trade union-political cooperation.

The Sweden Democrats therefore consider that the trade union-political cooperation makes people not want to become safety representatives. It is nothing that one actually knows, fears, or even believes, but it is something that one thinks.

To claim that the organization of the collective labor movement makes Swedish workplaces more dangerous, as Magnus Persson does from the rostrum, is actually so strange that it is hardly possible to counter. But unlike the Sverigedemokraterna and Magnus Persson, there are those who have looked at what the actual reasons are for why people do not want to become safety representatives or resign from the assignment.

LO has conducted surveys with 14,000 responses, and in those, a completely different picture emerges. The reasons why people do not want to become safety representatives or resign from the assignment are fear of reprisals from the company, that one does not receive the right conditions and time for the assignment from the employer, that the employer does not understand the assignment and also does not encourage people to become safety representatives, despite that one is supposed to cooperate regarding the work environment, that the employee does not know what the assignment entails and that one has an insecure employment.

It is these reasons that emerge when one asks the safety representatives themselves, so I wonder what Magnus Persson hopes the Arbetsmiljöverket's investigation will conclude.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johanna Haraldsson for the question.

I believe that we want to reach the same goal, but my thought and vision is that we should get more people to engage and become safety representatives.

Johanna Haraldsson mentions that LO has sent out a survey to safety representatives. Yes, but I am listening to all those who are not safety representatives and who might want to become safety representatives but do not have a chance to become one.

Today, one is excluded from becoming a safety representative on the Swedish labor market if one has a different political orientation than the Social Democrats. It is no secret. That is how it looks today, because today the trade union representative role is linked with the safety representative role, that it is exactly the same thing. I know this myself, because I have attended party school at Rönneberga and have had this debate very many times. That is how it looks.

If that link had been released, more could have become safety representatives. LO sends out a survey to its members and gets the answers they want. Yes, but it is roughly the same answers they received from the regional safety representatives. They got the answers they wanted, but perhaps not those that truly corresponded with reality.

I believe that one must look more broadly at this issue in order for people to engage, because it does not look like it did in the 70s and 80s in Sweden. The Swedish labor market has changed, the rate of unionization is decreasing, and fewer and fewer are prepared to take on assignments with the premises that are set for obtaining those assignments. This is what it is about, and then one must look at it from a broader perspective. That this proposal is being presented now is because one wants to get more people to engage.

How do the Social Democrats want more people to be able to engage as local safety representatives? What is your solution so that more people become local safety representatives? There are thousands missing, and that we agree on. How do the Social Democrats want to solve this? It would be very interesting to know that, because I have not heard it.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! One can begin by looking at what appears in the survey.

How can we strengthen the position of safety representatives in the workplace? In addition to the fact that one can sue companies that prevent a safety representative in the workplace from participating in safety work, one should also be able to impose sanction fees when one is not allowed to participate. The focus needs to be on how we strengthen the local safety representatives in the workplaces so that people dare to take on the assignment and can perform it in the best possible way.

Magnus Persson knows just as well as I do how important it is that the unions stand behind the safety representatives. It also appears in the Sweden Democrats' motions that they think it is important that the unions stand behind safety representatives. It is crucial to have strong support from an organization for one's training and support in the work in order to be able to perform one's work in the best way.

I think it is so strange that representatives for the government parties and the Sweden Democrats are highlighting the issue of the investigation that the Swedish Work Environment Authority is to conduct. One is so proud of an initiative that has upset the entire organized trade union movement, not just LO but also SACO and TCO. It became so upset because the trust in the government parties and the Sweden Democrats is at an all-time low in the issue of the work environment. In this, Magnus Persson and the Sweden Democrats also have a debt, because the only issues that you have previously driven regarding safety representatives are to separate the safety representatives from the unions and to abolish the regional safety representatives. That is something that would create a much worse situation in our workplaces in terms of the work environment.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clearly evident now in the debate with Johanna Haraldson what the fundamental problem is. It is about the fact that one is simply terrified of letting in actors in the workplaces to perform the work of safety representatives who do not come from the social democratic trade union ranks. One is afraid of losing power over Swedish workplaces.

Then there is the aspect that everything is the companies' fault. Why can't one cooperate on the issues?

Here lies an investigation where a hand is extended and a desire to cooperate broadly is expressed. It is not about shooting trade unions out of existence. No one has said that one should shoot trade unions out of existence and take something away from them, but rather that one should look at other solutions and cooperate broadly.

As soon as the Social Democrats raise this issue, they say that everything is the companies' fault. It is never the trade unions' fault, and it is never the Social Democrats' fault. It is always someone else's fault. The problem is that we lack tens of thousands of local safety representatives in Sweden, and the Social Democrats have absolutely no answer to that question.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the working environment and working hours. These are important topics.

Madam Speaker! From the Swedish Work Environment Authority's statistics, it appears that 55 people died due to fatal accidents at work during 2023. The corresponding figure for 2022 was 40 people, and in 2021, 39 people died. This is incredibly serious. We know that we have had a trend of decreasing workplace accidents over time, but we must react when this development is broken.

The Committee therefore proposes a motion to the Government: "The Government should take measures to highlight the underlying causes of the increasing number of fatal accidents in working life, with priority on the construction industry and other industries that are particularly vulnerable. The conclusions shall be taken into account in the work of the relevant authorities and in the implementation of the work environment strategy."

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report, including our joint proposal for a motion regarding measures to reduce the risks of fatal accidents in working life.

Madam Speaker! It is good that the government, in its regulatory letter, has given the Swedish Work Environment Authority a mandate with a reporting requirement to report on which measures the authority has taken to increase the proportion of unannounced physical inspections. The reporting shall take place in connection with the authority's annual report 2024.

Madam Speaker! It is the employers who, together with the labor market partners and the safety representatives, are the most important actors in creating safe and secure workplaces. At the same time, it is important that the state also takes its responsibility in the form of good laws and well-functioning inspections. It is therefore good that the government has decided to task the Swedish Work Environment Authority with submitting proposals for measures that can lead to more employees wanting to engage in the role of safety representative.

The Swedish Work Environment Authority shall also report the current number of safety representatives in Sweden as well as the development over time. The report shall include a comparison between industries with a breakdown for women and men. The authority shall also analyze which factors may deter people from becoming safety representatives. The assignment shall be reported by April 30, 2024, at the latest, which is quite soon.

In addition to this, the government has allocated resources so that Arbetsmiljöverket can carry out more inspections, which during 2023 resulted in Arbetsmiljöverket increasing the number of inspections compared to the previous year. The increase in 2023 was just over 12 percent compared to 2022. Also, joint agency controls against crime in the working life have increased, which is positive.

The government continues to strengthen the justice system, which in the long run will also have effects on crime in the working life. The government has also appointed an inquiry aimed at making it easier to exchange information within and between authorities in order to access criminal structures.

Madam Speaker! Before I leave the workplace accidents and comment on working hours, I would like to say once again that I personally believe it would be good if the Accident Investigation Authority looked at more workplace accidents over time to see if there is anything more we can do at a system level to reduce the number of work-related accidents.

Madam Speaker! Working hours and working conditions are regulated by EU directives, Swedish law, and collective agreements. Generally speaking, we as Christian Democrats are satisfied with the current order. There are, however, situations where these different levels of decision-making and processes collide with one another.

One such example is the working time directive, which among other things regulates daily rest. This directive has created great concern within healthcare, LSS, and emergency services. We from Kristdemokraterna have constantly asserted that there is a possibility for exceptions, provided that the parties find common solutions on this. According to the information we have received, the parties have now found a new way to work with this, which should work for most who work with individuals and within healthcare. But within the emergency services, problems remain that the parties need to continue working on.

It is positive that the parties are trying to resolve the problems that exist, but since the working hours directive in combination with previous negotiations has created major problems, we will follow the issue. This has been a major discussion during the past year.

Madam Speaker! It is also concerning that the EU in various ways makes decisions that affect our labor market model. Since our model has served us well and created a well-functioning labor market with participation and few strikes, we will continue to monitor this, so that in the future we can continue with our legislative and negotiation model.

Madam Speaker! Another question that repeatedly arises in the debate is the question of a general reduction of working hours. From a Christian Democratic standpoint, we are clear that we do not believe in a general reduction of working hours. Our reasons for this are partly economic, but it is also a fact that we are heading into a situation with a labor shortage. If one then implements a general reduction of working hours, the shortages will become even greater. We therefore do not see that there are any possibilities to implement a general change.

At the same time, we have great respect for the parties in the labor market and that there may very well be occupational groups or workplaces where one can negotiate a reduction in working hours or other ways to complete a task. In these cases, we do not consider it an issue that politics should overrule, but our basic view is that it is the parties in the labor market who own those types of changes through agreements.

Madam Speaker! We also see that the labor market is undergoing changes. We have digital companies, so-called app companies, which create a certain problem. Who is the employer and who is the employee? How do we find security in that labor market, which is growing?

A phenomenon that I believe all of us here in the room have in common with many self-employed people and others is that it is unclear when the work begins and when it ends. It probably happens more than once that one answers an email at ten, eleven, or twelve in the evening and that one perhaps answers another email at five in the morning. This obviously creates a situation where it becomes difficult to see when the work is ongoing and when the work ends.

These are questions that are not so easy to regulate, Madam Speaker. It is about a work culture that one builds up and about a pattern of behavior. Often it is professions where one has great freedom and owns one's own working time. But these are still questions that we need to follow to see what the consequences can be over time.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report in its entirety.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! People are exposed to risks at work every day. Therefore, it is crucial that one constantly works with the work environment at the workplace. By assessing risks and taking the necessary actions, the employer can act preventatively, so that none of the employees become one of the far too many Swedes who shorten their lives at work.

Last year, 63 people died at their workplace. Unfortunately, this year has not started any better. Already, 16 people have died at work this year. Add to that approximately 3,000 who die every year as a result of work. This is a tragedy and something that is completely unacceptable, and it requires that we make greater efforts in the area of the work environment.

Those worst affected by fatal accidents are, as many times before, those who work in the construction industry. Therefore, we Social Democrats already in December last year submitted a proposal for a committee initiative to appoint a crisis commission to reduce the number of fatal accidents within the construction industry specifically. We did it to force the government to act quickly and forcefully. Short construction times, companies without their own employees, long chains of subcontractors, unclear knowledge requirements on employers, insufficient control, and procurement that prioritizes the lowest price over everything else is a cocktail that obviously makes construction sites more dangerous than others. Add to that widespread crime in the working life. It is an issue that my party colleague Patrik Lundqvist will speak more about in his speech.

More far-reaching measures are needed to get the working environment in the construction industry in order. Therefore, we want a specific commission for the construction industry with a mandate to review the entire organizational structure that leads to fatal accidents within the sector. It is not just about reviewing individual incidents, but about a total review of the entire sector.

We propose that a commission led by Arbetsmiljöverket and the police, together with other relevant authorities, experts and labor market partners, shall be given the freedom to independently plan its work based on the goal of identifying the causes and formulating measures to prevent further fatal accidents.

When we presented our proposal, the committee agreed to continue to process the issue. But the government and the Sweden Democrats presented a counter-proposal that does not involve a crisis commission, but rather that the authorities should be tasked with highlighting the underlying causes of the fatal accidents in more industries. It is a task that they already have in the current situation. We experience it as a total dilution of our proposal. They have also not been willing to compromise, despite our attempts.

Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties decided that there was no particular hurry with the crisis commission. It has been more than four months since we submitted our proposal, and the committee could have made its announcement several months ago. But the formal decision on the initiative is being made today. It is obvious that the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats do not want a crisis commission.

Madam Speaker! The government parties have tasked the Swedish Work Environment Authority with increasing the number of unannounced inspections at workplaces. This is something that can be good. But the problem was that no additional resources were allocated for the work. We are concerned that this increase will crowd out other interventions, and in particular those inspections where prior notification is required for the inspection to be carried out in a good way.

We do not want the unannounced inspections to occur at the expense of the control of the working environment at female-dominated workplaces. These are workplaces where the problems are often of a different nature, where stress and high workload increasingly make people ill.

The organizational and social work environment must be taken much more seriously. Therefore, we should tighten the requirements on the employer in various ways. We do this, among other things, by ensuring that employers can face sanctions if they ignore investigating the employees' workload or if they do not meet the requirement that the person responsible for work environment issues has sufficient competence for the assignment.

Madam Speaker! All of us who have ever had a job know that in some workplaces, the work environment work functions very well. You receive training on what risks exist with different parts of your work, the employer purchases the necessary aids, and the workplace is adapted so that you can do what you are assigned to do. These are workplaces where the employer continuously follows up on the workload and the experience of stress among the employees.

My employer installed a lift at the machine where I worked so that I and my colleagues would not have to lift heavy tools up a staircase and thus risk overexertion or losing balance and falling down. They built in other machines to reduce the noise, and they changed work methods and routines to reduce the risk of injuries.

All of this was a result of systematic work environment work in cooperation with safety representatives and the employees. Despite the fact that the factory and many of the machines have been the same for several decades, new improvements were constantly found in the workplace.

But there are also workplaces where the work is not prioritized, where knowledge is low regarding what should be done, and where systematic work environment management does not exist. Add to that workplaces where rules are systematically broken and where the health and safety of employees are ignored. They brush off safety representatives and the employees' concerns that someone will get hurt or burn out, if they even dare to point out the risks to their employer.

Our laws and regulations in the area of the work environment are comprehensive and clear. The employer bears full responsibility for the work environment and shall do what is required so that no one is harmed or suffers an accident at work.

The rules also tell us that the work shall be carried out in cooperation with the employees. Safety representatives elected by the employees are crucial for that cooperation to function. It is fundamental that the safety representatives are knowledgeable and strong and can press the employer who may not be equally engaged or lacks the knowledge.

In order for safety representatives to have the power to make demands on their employer, it is required that they have training and support in their important work. They receive this through their trade union. A safety representative who is not appointed by the union at the workplace cannot exert the power that is often required behind the words. But with a trade union behind them, safety representatives stand strong and know that they can get the support required if they are opposed in their mission.

The understanding of how work environment work functions in the workplace seems to be failing among the government parties, I argue. It became clear when the assignment was given to Arbetsmiljöverket to review how more safety representatives can be obtained, regardless of whether these are organized or not.

The entire trade union movement - everything from white-collar workers and academics to manual laborers - reacted strongly against the assignment, because they know what effect more unorganized safety representatives would have on safety work. With weaker safety representatives without support, the work environment work at our workplaces would become worse and the wage earners would be left without representatives in a vital issue such as protection against accidents and ill health at work.

Madam Speaker! Just as people in many workplaces work daily to increase safety and create safe and healthy workplaces, we in the Riksdag and the government need to take our responsibility and take initiative to do what we can. I mean that the government is not taking that responsibility sufficiently.

There are several completed proposals on the government's desk that, if implemented, would contribute to better work environment work and which are completely in line with the work environment strategy. We Social Democrats highlight several of these proposals in our motions and reservations.

It is about:

Expanded access for regional safety representatives. More employees in Sweden, especially at smaller workplaces, would need the support and follow-up of the working environment that the regional safety representatives provide.

Sanction fees for more deficiencies in the work environment. It must have consequences to not care about the most basic work environment rules.

Increased management responsibility to clarify the responsibility for the working environment at workplaces where several employers are involved, and perhaps be able to improve the situation a little bit for the food delivery couriers, whose working environment no one takes responsibility for at the current time.

Increased use of occupational health care.

Ratification of the ILO Convention on violence and harassment in the workplace.

But the government and the Sweden Democrats continue to dodge point after point, and the list of government bills is very meager.

It almost seems as if everything else is more important than a safer working life. Instead of dealing with the wild west-like order prevailing within the construction industry, I experience that people are sitting on their hands.

This is regrettable, Madam Speaker. It is not reasonable that so many people every day risk life and health simply because they are going to work. We Social Democrats have, in our motions, presented several proposals for how we in Sweden can strengthen the working environment and the preventive work at our workplaces. We want more!

I would like to conclude by promising that I and the Social Democrats will continue to push to ensure that these issues are higher up on the agenda.

Madam Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 30.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to one matter, I can agree with Johanna Haraldsson. I agree with the criticism that the list of motions from the Ministry of Employment is thin. I agree with that. It is only to be regretted.

I want to say a few words about something we discussed briefly in the previous exchange. It concerns how the Sverigedemokraterna view a crisis commission. It is important to also include that in the discussion. It constantly sounds like we are part of the government.

When the proposal came to the table and I read it very quickly, I thought at first that it looked quite good. But one had been in a bit of a hurry when writing it. In my world, one might in that situation have been able to stand behind Ciczie Weidby's and Vänsterpartiet's reservation.

They have pushed for the issue of a commission to shed light on the workplace accidents for very many years. It is a very good motion, I must say, which I also mention in a special statement.

When I read through the proposal that the Social Democrats had submitted, I thought it was very narrow and hastily done. One got the impression that it was a panic solution intended to create headlines.

It is not quite correct, as Johanna Haraldsson says, that we invited the other parties to negotiate and reach an agreement on the issue. We must be very clear - and this is important - that the Social Democrats are not allowed to reach an agreement with the Sweden Democrats on any issue whatsoever. There are decisions on this within the Social Democrats, and it applies both in the Riksdag and at the regional and municipal level. That is how it is.

My door was open the whole time, but it was no one from the Social Democrats who came to the Sweden Democrats to even discuss this with us as an individual party. My question to Johanna Haraldsson therefore is: Does Johanna Haraldsson think it is problematic that the Social Democrats are not allowed to discuss substantive issues with the Sweden Democrats, issues where we are in many respects in agreement?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! What Magnus Persson claims is not correct. We opened the committee meeting to reach an agreement on a compromise proposal when it came to our proposal regarding a crisis commission. We saw that there were parts of the proposal put forward by the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna that could in a good way complement our proposal. We therefore said that it would be good if we could reach an agreement on a joint proposal for a crisis commission where one would specifically look at the construction industry, because that is where the very biggest problems exist. The entire organization in some way creates a breeding ground for fraud and exploitation, and the long chains of subcontractors make it seem as if the responsibility for the working environment disappears.

So it is not true that we did not want to negotiate and compromise. We did want to!

We have seen on several occasions that the Sweden Democrats have been able to break away a bit from the Tidö cooperation and put forward other proposals and push issues against the government parties. But in this question, one could not do that. What is the reason for that?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The question remains. My door stood open, but no one from the Social Democrats came in and wanted to discuss this issue. We could have obtained a majority for a joint proposal. We could have overridden the government on this issue. But you were not interested.

You are not allowed to negotiate with the Sweden Democrats. It is important to tell those listening to the debate. Often the Sweden Democrats are blamed for betraying the workers in this issue or that, but we do not do that. It is the Social Democrats who betray the workers when they refuse to negotiate and discuss with the second-largest party in the Swedish Riksdag.

We could have pushed through a huge amount of questions already during the last parliamentary term. When you governed in a minority, you could have reached agreements with the Sweden Democrats on a huge number of issues: the prescription periods for workplace environment crimes, issues regarding crime in the working life, and how many other issues as you liked. But you refuse to negotiate and reach agreements with the Sweden Democrats.

In a negotiation, you are two parties who discuss and reach an agreement. In that case, it is not the intention that one party should automatically buy the concept that is on the table.

As long as the Social Democrats close the door to the Sweden Democrats and refuse to negotiate on substantive issues, the criticism against the Sweden Democrats is not credible at all. In that case, it is merely a political game from the Social Democrats. It is simply regrettable. Those who are most affected are the Swedish wage earners in our workplaces.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It seems to be more about how one negotiates than about negotiating at all.

Had Magnus Persson responded to the extended hand in the question of how we should formulate the crisis commission, it would have been a negotiation, but he did not.

It is perfectly fine for the Sverigedemokraterna to vote for a crisis commission today if they truly think it is good that we conduct a thorough review of the construction industry, instead of voting for the watered-down proposal that the government parties stand behind.

There are obviously other issues where we agree somewhat, and the Sweden Democrats often highlight this closely. But time and again it turns out that it is more important to hold together the government alternative than to actually vote on the issues that one considers important.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! In this report, we have a large number of motions dealing with the work environment and working hours. At the same time, the report shows that the government is already working on the issues and that a large number of processes are underway. They will come before the Riksdag for decisions in the coming years. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The public debate has in recent months focused heavily on the construction industry and the terrible accident statistics we have seen. What has happened in the construction industry and many other industries in recent years is completely unacceptable. When something receives rightful great attention, other problems easily fall into the shadows. No one should be injured at work, and no one should either become ill from their work.

In the Swedish Work Environment Authority's report Work-related ailments 2022, which concerns ailments of various kinds, for example physical and psychosomatic ailments, it is stated that the most common cause of ailments, apart from accidents, is excessive workload. It is particularly common with ailments of this sort among women employed in public activities within municipalities and regions.

This is easy to see with one's own eyes. The workload in the public sector is often problematic, and it is difficult to attract competence to the professions, which would give the employees more colleagues. Not infrequently, there are resources for hiring but the workforce is lacking.

I want to point out that things are happening outside the chamber, and I want to highlight the work being done by our regional colleagues at hospitals and health centers across the country. In Skåne, where I have previously been active as a politician, courageous decisions have been made regarding the use of staffing agencies.

Madam Speaker! In 2020, Skåne University Hospital had a way of working that meant no one was allowed to hire agency staff unless it was inconvenient working hours, for a very short period, and all other alternatives had been tried. This meant that the total cost for staffing companies was 2.5 percent, which is SKR's definition of being independent of agency staff.

But the truth is that the proportion on individual care departments was significantly higher. When the covid pandemic arrived, the conditions changed. Suddenly, some of the staffing companies said they could only provide staffing on weekdays, with the consequence that the regular staff had to work longer shifts, nights, and weekends.

That hired staff is now being replaced with permanent staff, which in the long run means an improvement of the working environment. Furthermore, that the hiring freeze has financed a significantly increased OB-supplement is expected to be appreciated by everyone who works there.

Let me be clear: Hiring agency staff during a peak, due to illness, or to cover working hours that are unattractive for existing staff is excellent. But when the proportion of those who choose to work as agency staff increases and the existing staff is so few, the competence development and quality work stall, and the well-being at the workplace decreases. In short: The work environment deteriorates.

Fewer permanent employees generate work environment problems, which in turn generate that more choose staffing agencies. The downward spiral accelerates, and it affects the work environment for the nurses, nursing assistants, and other healthcare staff who carry the heavy burden. Therefore, it is required that someone is brave enough to put their foot down.

These types of measures are important, but it is tough during the transition. One is forced to reduce care beds. One is forced to increase the out-location of patients and supplement with mobile teams.

I hope that the Work Environment Authority sees the long-term benefit of the work and that sanctions are not imposed during the transition work. I also hope that trade unions and employers can work hand in hand, so that results are achieved as quickly as possible. I am convinced that the goal is shared, but right now it is a bumpy road where the trade unions are worried about the daily work. In Skåne, they have started hiring nurses again, but more are needed. They and all other healthcare workers should have the opportunity for competence development, career, and sensible working conditions.

Now it is a matter of holding on and persevering.

Finally, in my speech, I want to raise the debate on general reduction of working hours. I want to clarify that the Liberals do not have any common decision yet. This is not something we have brought up and discussed at national meetings or the like, but the discussions are, of course, ongoing in the corridors.

I can state that it is not a liberal thought that we must work eight hours a day - on the contrary, it is very liberal if one gets more time to dispose of freely. On the other hand, it is liberal that one can support oneself, that one is a part of the social fabric and that one is a part of the work line for our common welfare. At the same time, we face major changes in the labor market due to AI or whatever comes beyond AI, when it sinks, and what it will mean for our productivity.

With that said, it is difficult to see that we, within a foreseeable future, have the possibility to generally reduce working hours with or without maintained pay.

Today, agreements are made between the parties, and many occupational categories have a full-time measure that is lower than 40 hours. At the same time, agreements between the parties will mean that there will be different opportunities for flexible working hours between different jobs and different occupational categories. In many welfare professions, one cannot work from home any day of the week or clock out earlier. When it concerns occupations where the working time is more inflexible, we must discuss what can be done so that one chooses that type of career.

What qualities should compensate for a rigidity regarding working hours? Perhaps one should review the working hours specifically for these professions in the future. When it comes to the care professions, we know that we are facing a gigantic labor demand. We must both increase our numbers and change working methods to meet the future. If we do not do this, fewer will choose patient- and citizen-oriented professions, and it will become increasingly difficult to recruit to healthcare and teacher training. I am convinced that we all want to prevent that development.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has for many years presented demands for measures to reverse the negative development regarding fatal accidents in working life. It is of course welcome that all parties now show an interest in doing something about this central societal problem and that the question of a committee initiative has been raised in the committee.

During the preparation process, I showed interest in and supported the Social Democrats' proposal. Our demand was that the issue should be prepared expeditiously in a separate report. But a majority in the committee has unfortunately not at all a need for an expeditious handling, but has let the proposal for a committee initiative be handled and prepared in the same report as the one where my motion, with a request for a state crisis commission against fatal accidents in working life, is treated.

The motion that the Left Party has advocated for for a long time is much more extensive than the various proposals for initiatives that have been debated in the committee. Since my motion is included in this report, I choose not to join any other proposal. I move for the rejection of the proposal on the committee initiative.

In accordance with the committee, I note that 2023 became a very dark year on the Swedish labor market, with more than 60 people dying at work. The negative development has continued during the beginning of 2024, with fatal accidents on a frightening scale. It can, of course, never be accepted that people die at work. Every individual death is, of course, a tragedy for the relatives, for the employer, and for society.

I argue that the fact that death at work is not highlighted in the public debate in a way that is proportional to the number of those affected is a consequence of us living in a class society. The companies' pursuit of profit is often the basis for workplace accidents with a fatal outcome. The pursuit of profit and high surpluses leads to a poor working environment, negligence regarding protective equipment, and substandard work tools.

In order to address workplace accidents, a society is needed where people's well-being is prioritized over companies' profits. For that very reason, Vänsterpartiet has for many years raised the issues of fatal accidents in working life in the Riksdag. During the current parliamentary session, among other things, a special debate has been held in the chamber due to the high number of fatal accidents, at the specific request of Vänsterpartiet.

I note during the debate that certain steps are being taken in the right direction and that the issues are being recognized and debated. But I can also state, in like manner with many different trade unions, that further measures are required to reverse the negative development. The zero vision against fatal accidents that the Riksdag has decided upon actually requires much sharper measures than those that have been taken so far.

I really think it is regrettable that a majority in the committee has stood behind a proposal that appears very powerless and an arrangement that means there will be a very sluggish handling of this matter.

I believe that the government should appoint a state crisis commission that takes a holistic approach to all fatal accidents in working life and that concrete measures should be presented to reverse the development.

It is positive to read that the Sweden Democrats, in a specific statement, speak well of our motion and that they actually could have imagined standing behind it. I also heard Saila Quicklund, in an exchange of remarks between her and Johanna Haraldsson, say: This proposal is, like, far too narrow. We would have a much broader approach to this.

Again: You are very welcome to stand behind the Left Party's motion for a government inquiry and for a crisis commission for all fatal accidents.

Madam Speaker! Just like several trade unions, I can state that the legislation on occupational environment crimes is currently insufficient. That deficiencies in the work environment which cause deaths and serious injuries are not punished is completely unacceptable. It is fundamental that employers who neglect their responsibility for the work environment are held accountable and punished.

Unfortunately, it can be observed that the amendment to the regulations on corporate fines introduced in 2020 has not had the intended effect. Despite both the bill and the ministers promising increased fines for workplace environment crimes, in practice, nothing has happened. A review conducted by Dagens Arbetsmiljö shows that the average amount for a corporate fine remains completely unchanged even after this amendment. Companies that commit repeated workplace environment crimes are not sentenced more severely, and companies can even receive a discount on the fines. Surely that was not the intention of the legislative change?

Madam Speaker! A major problem when it comes to crimes against the working environment is the scattered legislation. Provisions of importance are scattered in the Penal Code, the Work Environment Act, and the Swedish Work Environment Authority's collection of regulations. When the legislation is so scattered, it contributes to investigations into crimes against the working environment being hindered and that relatively few indictments are filed.

In Norway, for example, the average processing time in this area is approximately half as long as in Sweden. One reason for this is precisely a more uniform legislation with a separate Work Environment Act, which facilitates the investigation work. Vänsterpartiet considers this a very good proposal. We believe that we should introduce a uniform legislation on the work environment and facilitate the investigation of work environment crimes.

Madam Speaker! Today's working life is characterized for many people by increased intensity and stress and a high pace. In recent decades, workplaces have been streamlined and to a very large extent streamlined. Those who have jobs often find it difficult to combine their gainful employment with parenthood, family, and leisure; the time simply is not sufficient. Many workers are also forced to work overtime - while hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed or work involuntary part-time.

It must, of course, be reasonable that it is possible for both women and men, in both manual occupations and white-collar occupations, to combine full-time work with parenthood, family, and leisure without wearing themselves out.

In a debate article signed by the chairman of the Transport, Trade and Municipal Union in Dagens Arena on March 19, it is written that they are pleased that reduction of working hours is already practically possible for certain groups - those who have the opportunity to work flexibly and who can leave the preschool at any time, work on the commuter train or the bus, go home an hour earlier from work or take the weekend earlier on Fridays - but that the members of their union work tough shifts within healthcare, the transport sector and within trade, where working hours are strictly controlled. The possibility of going home even ten minutes earlier to pick up from after-school care is very limited.

Madam Speaker! In a household with two workers, the unpaid housework simply does not add up if both work full-time. Then it very often happens, as if by a strange coincidence, that the woman is the one who has to reduce her working hours to get everything to function. I wonder if there is a will to seriously have a modern and equal labor market, because if so, we must also modernize the measure of working hours.

Naturally, I agree with the committee that the parties in the labor market have a central role in handling issues regarding working hours, but clearer support in the legislation was needed as a basis for negotiations and deviations in collective agreements. I hear here in the debate that the parties are being praised, but then one quite often forgets that all our collective agreements, of course, are based on legislation. At the foundation lies a legislation, which is then improved through agreements.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 40 to take a first step towards appointing an investigation with the mandate to clarify the possibilities for a general reduction of working hours. I am not, therefore, standing here saying that we will legislate on a 30-hour work week tomorrow.

Madam Speaker! On May 1, 1890, the demand for an eight-hour workday was the most important issue. Today, 134 years later, the question of working hours is still just as relevant. From being only a few, the list is now filled with trade unions that want a reduction in working hours.

A shorter full-time measure obviously does not solve all problems in working life. In many professions, more resources, more colleagues, and a better organization of work are needed. But shorter working hours are a central piece of the puzzle to create a more sustainable working life where more people have the energy and want to work until retirement. Many other countries have already realized this – in Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, the work week is already shorter, and large-scale trials and initiatives on shortening working hours have been carried out in, for example, Iceland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

Madam Speaker! Should Sweden really be the last to act? The popular support is there, and the trade union support is there. It is time to investigate and modernize working hours.

(Applause)

(cont. § 14)

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