Labor law

Ulf Lindholm (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

Labor law

We have for some time emphasized the need to review certain parts of the leave legislation. This concerns partly the issue of an expanded right to leave to conduct business activities, and partly the need for both parents to have a statutory right to be present at visits to maternity care throughout the entire pregnancy.

We still see that there are needs in these areas when it comes to getting more companies to emerge in Sweden and to give both parents the opportunity to prepare for the upcoming parenthood.

These are questions we raise in our committee motions. They are sharp proposals that the government should review the relevant parts of the leave legislation. We naturally stand behind what is stated in the motions regarding the need for changes in these areas. We note, however, at the same time that a major reform of the labor law framework has recently been carried out in line with what has been requested by the parties in the Swedish labor market. There are reasons to let this reform fully take effect in the labor market before initiatives are taken for any new reforms. But, Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, push to ensure that our policies also gain traction in the future in cooperation with parties within the area of labor law.

The Sweden Democrats also want to emphasize that Sweden has a strong and well-functioning labor market model. The important thing is that the political trade-offs made in the labor market area are made with this successful model in focus. The transition package that is now being implemented on the Swedish labor market with reforms for increased flexibility, transition capability, and security in the labor market is a good example of having the Swedish labor market model in mind.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to emphasize the Tidö Agreement, where the coalition parties Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna state that the parties agree to take responsibility for Sweden in a joint cooperation during the mandate period 2022-2026. We welcome the path that our parties, together with the other coalition parties, have charted for the development of Sweden during the coming years.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with Report AU5 Labour Law. The report handles the 40 motions on labour law that have been submitted in various motions from Members of Parliament and parties. It is an important report, but it largely reflects the change in legislation that has applied since 1 October 2022 and which was a result of negotiations between the parties in the labour market.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation number 15.

The Swedish model on the labor market is based on a large shared responsibility between the parties. It has proven to be a successful model that has provided stability in the Swedish labor market. The number of days in conflict is low in both international and historical terms.

The year 2020 was characterized by much unrest in the world but not by conflicts in the labor market in Sweden - zero days. Even the following year, the conflicts were few, and only eleven workdays were lost as a result of labor market conflict between the parties. These are, as stated, very low figures both internationally and historically. The Swedish model in the labor market works and must be protected.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that Sweden continues to stand up for a fair world trade. A fair trade strengthens and anchors the legitimacy of global trade. It is also a prerequisite for sustainable trade, not least when it comes to social sustainability.

Sweden has shown that it is possible to combine free and open trade with, for example, high environmental requirements and a strong protection for workers' rights. An important part of this is the global partnership Global Deal, which works for social dialogue and improved labor market relations. It is a valuable tool for improving conditions even outside of Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! For the Swedish model to function, it must be respected by everyone in the labor market. Unfortunately, we see how some companies do not uphold the agreements and conditions that have been negotiated between the parties. The so-called labor crime is spreading. Companies that systematically exploit workers and distort competition have major consequences for both individuals and society as a whole.

We have during the recent years read many reports from all over Sweden about how workers are exploited. They are forced to sleep on the floor in the basement, pay back parts of their wages and work in an insecure work environment. Often it is people who already before had a difficult everyday life who are exploited. Construction, restaurant and cleaning are some of the industries that are pointed out as extra vulnerable.

This contributes to an unhealthy competition where companies that want to do the right thing risk being driven out. It is therefore important that the parties in the labor market have a close cooperation with authorities to uphold laws and regulations in the Swedish labor market.

Mr. Speaker! After the parties in the labor market reached a new agreement on a new main agreement, we have had new legislation from 1 October 2022. The new main agreement on security, transition, and employment protection lays the foundation for a changed labor market.

When the parties are in agreement in this way, it is important for us in politics to respect that and not go over their heads. Many motions concern what has been negotiated between the parties, and it is important to let the parties evaluate and conduct negotiations regarding any future changes.

I want to touch upon some parts of the changed legislation in this area. The law was changed so that full-time work shall be the norm. The protection for working hours was also to be strengthened as a result of a rotation system being introduced for changed working hours, so-called "hyvling". These were important changes that were intended to increase security for many.

Mr. Speaker! It has now been a little more than four months since the new law came into effect, and in recent weeks we have been able to see how this is practiced in reality. A large company now chooses to reduce the working hours for the employees on a broad front. They bypass the priority rules by changing the working hours for all employees at the workplace. At the same time, new jobs are being posted where the contract is for zero hours a week. Is this the new interpretation of full-time as the norm?

I want to be clear about my and the Social Democrats' view on this: We want the norm on the Swedish labor market to be permanent full-time employment covered by collective agreements. It should be the labor market parties who, according to the Swedish model, negotiate the terms on the labor market, and both sides must uphold the agreements that are concluded.

What is happening now is the first test of the new agreement. I find it difficult to see that the downsizing we are now seeing is in accordance with the intention of the new agreement. Employees who have worked in the company for a long time are now seeing their wages and working hours decrease. There are examples where employees have to go down to as little as five hours a week. How are they supposed to manage on their wages with so few hours?

What is happening is embarrassing. It moves even further towards a labor market that I thought belonged to the past, where the employee needs to stand with their hat in hand to ask for a job so that the bills can be paid.

The legislation is new and the agreement is new. I am sure that the issue will be discussed in the collective bargaining movement that many are now facing, and I am sure that the issue is best handled between the parties in the labor market according to the model that we have in the Swedish labor market.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! The labor market is in constant change. International competition, technological development and other factors mean that people sometimes must move from shrinking companies to industries where new jobs are emerging or have become vacant. That this structural transformation works effectively is a prerequisite for our economic prosperity to increase.

The Swedish model contributes to both stability and flexibility in the labor market. The parties' willingness to reach agreements, resolve conflicts, and jointly contribute to both high growth and a functional labor market serves the Swedish people well.

In order for the labor market not to become a club for mutual admiration between those who already have a job and those who hire, the policy must take the responsibility to be the third party that represents those who lack work.

Everyone who can work shall work. Therefore, rules, incentives, and support need to be designed to create the conditions for full employment. Work is, as is well known, security, community, and also access to the growing prosperity.

Mr. Speaker! Most groups within most sectors in most places around our elongated country are managing the structural transformation well. On the whole, it is actually less dramatic to be laid off from a job in Sweden than in many other OECD countries. This is shown by SNS's latest economic outlook report. Long notice periods ensure that few who are given notice actually become unemployed. It keeps what a theorist would call frictional unemployment, i.e., unemployment between two jobs, down. Those who become unemployed after a notice therefore risk longer periods of unemployment and need to meet high expectations, adequate replacement levels, and low thresholds.

At the same time, there are groups that more frequently experience problems. Those who are hit hardest today by the structural transformation are older and less educated people in rural areas, often if they have lost a job within the manufacturing industry. Particularly negative and lasting income effects are also seen when the layoffs are large in relation to the local labor market.

The importance of labor law grows as the economy now appears to be heading downwards. The Swedish model then builds resilience in the economy.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish model is rarely threatened from this chamber but rather from other places, right now perhaps primarily from the EU. The government has therefore acted so that the Swedish model shall be protected from meddlesome Brussels bureaucrats. It is crucial that Sweden safeguards our interests against supranationality.

One still has to admire the Social Democratic self-confidence. We usually do not want the EU to legislate on the right to abortion, because we understand that it would probably not become Swedish legislation in the entire EU if Poland and others also get to be involved in the decision-making.

Despite this broadly anchored insight in some areas, the Social Democrats still seem to believe that precisely when it comes to labor law, it should be exactly as we in Sweden want. Therefore, the previous Social Democratic government subjected the Swedish model to an almost existential threat with social summits and the introduction of the social pillar. Just as it concerns security, the energy market, the tax system, the school, social assistance and much more, it is now up to the new Moderate-led government to stop, clean up and rectify where the Social Democrats' careless governance created problems.

Mr. Speaker! The core task of politics when it comes to labor law is that people should be secure in the labor market. The new transition agreement strengthens security in the labor market with broad access to skills development while simultaneously increasing the flexibility surrounding individual employment.

Now, caution is required so that the transition agreement can also gain a foothold in the labor market. Several of the proposals found in some of the reservations may, of course, be well-intentioned, while others would impair the labor market's functionality. Regardless of this, it is not the time to introduce new major legislation when the parties have just, at the request of the politicians, concluded a new agreement that will have effect in the future.

Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Life as a retail worker often begins in great insecurity. If one is lucky, small steps towards increased security follow. At the same time as life goes on, the need for secure employment usually increases as one starts a family, needs a permanent home, or takes out a bank loan. Unfortunately, actual security does not increase at the same rate as the need for security.

Almost three out of ten shop employees have a temporary employment. Three out of four of these are called in as needed and work per hour. These are the most insecure forms of temporary employment. Many do not know if they have any employment next month, next week, next day. One in four has fewer than 20 hours a week on their contract. A worker in retail has an average wage income of 18,300 kronor a month - before tax. A secure job with a wage to live on is therefore to be considered a privilege for shop employees. It is a privilege that one often needs to spend several years to earn.

Mr. Speaker! When the amendments to LAS were negotiated in the autumn of 2020, Kommunals' then chairman Tobias Baudin was satisfied with the result and said that he was glad that the abuse of the "hyvling" would now be stopped. And seven of the eight parties in the Swedish Parliament cheered when the LAS proposition was passed on June 8, 2022.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee rejects the Left Party's motion to ban "hyvling" and refers to the changes in LAS resulting from the parties' agreement. It is considered that "the new regulatory framework implies a strengthened employment protection for employees precisely in situations where an employer chooses to readjust the employment rate". The Committee perceives it as a "well-balanced change of the regulatory framework". The Committee also emphasizes that "the change should be seen as part of a larger package where both the employees' and the employers' needs for flexibility, security, and influence shall be met". According to the Committee, there is therefore no reason whatsoever for the Riksdag to take initiative in this area. The Committee majority, from right to left, therefore considers the current legislation regarding "hyvling" to be good and sees no reason to change the regulatory framework.

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what reality the other parties are living in, but it is not in the real world. For those members who have obviously missed what has happened over the last few months, I will provide a very brief summary here.

In October 2022, the clothing chain Hennes & Mauritz notified around 400 employees in 69 stores across Sweden of redundancy. Instead of laying off staff according to the seniority rules, they have chosen to reduce working hours, that is, lower the employment rate, for up to 1,500 employees. This corresponds to a third of the shop employees in Sweden.

Most have received an "offer" of a lower degree of employment. Employees who previously worked full-time, that is 38 hours per week, have now been "offered" 5 hours a week. Unfortunately, there are many such examples. They are now faced with the choice to accept or to resign. At the same time, H & M is advertising for new staff. It can be quite nice to have new staff who are younger, unorganized, and have lower demands on salary and so on.

Mr. Speaker! If we were to ask the employees who during the winter have received "the offer" and had their economic reality crushed if they think they have received a "strengthened employment protection," I do not think they would agree. The new rules, which simplified mean that freely lowering the employment rate would thus be used in a certain order, have instead turned out to be completely toothless.

It is the case, Mr. Speaker, that a loophole in the law allows one to bypass the new law. Put simply, one can say that if you are only reducing a few services, the law applies, but it does not apply if you reduce all services equally. That is exactly what H & M has done. Thus, one can circumvent the entire regulatory framework. In that case, it doesn't matter how old you are or how long you have worked in the store; you have no security.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

Vänsterpartiet is the only party in the Riksdag that wants to ban layoffs. The other parties seem to be satisfied with the new regulation in LAS - even though it is not working. But before I leave the rostrum, I would like to ask a few open questions.

Do you think that the employees at H & M have received a "strengthened employment protection"?

Is it reasonable that an employer should be able to lower the employees' employment level in the way H & M has done?

Is there anyone here who can manage on around 10 hours a week?

If anyone here were to answer no to these questions, they should also be in favor of a ban on "hyvling" (job trimming). When hyvling was tested legally, it became clear that no full-time employment was protected in Sweden – and no part-time employment either for that part. Hyvling has been a fact ever since the Coop judgment in 2016. It is a despicable personnel policy and a dishonest way to treat people. And because it is legal, it is also how it is done.

Mr. Speaker! I have no illusions that the right-wing government and its supporting parties will change the legislation. None of these parties have ever before lifted a finger to rectify the "hyvling" [scavenging/looting], and they obviously will not do so now either. They are completely uninterested in improving the conditions for ordinary people – that is as it has been for a long time.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to state that the Swedish labor market model is based on a distribution of responsibility between the state and the parties in the labor market.

The state's role is to contribute with a purposeful regulatory framework and other steering mechanisms to ensure good working conditions and facilitate the creation of new jobs, while simultaneously creating conditions for the parties in the labor market to take responsibility for the design of wages and other conditions. Sweden has a strong and well-functioning labor market model, which has served us well.

Mr. Speaker! For several years, there has been a discussion about seniority rules, skills shortages, and flexibility in the labor market. The transition package that is now being implemented in the Swedish labor market, with reforms for increased flexibility, transition capability, and security in the labor market, is a good example of how the Swedish labor market model manages to handle the challenges that exist in the labor market. The negotiation of the transition package shows a good balance between both employers' and employees' needs for flexibility, security, and influence.

I believe it is important that we cooperate with the transition organizations that are now emerging, for example TRR and TSL. Looking at how they work, one can see that cooperation between the labor market parties also facilitates the transition from one job to another.

Mr. Speaker! For the vast majority on the labor market, income from work constitutes the largest source of income. Earned income is also important for other incomes because it largely forms the basis for, for example, sickness benefit, parental benefit, and pension.

According to figures from SKR, the proportion of full-time employees in the municipalities increased from 70 to 83 percent between 2009 and 2020. During the same period, the proportion of those working full-time increased from 60 to 71 percent. For the regions, the corresponding figures are an increase in the proportion of full-time employees from 81 to 90 percent, while the proportion of those working full-time has increased from 63 to 71 percent.

Mr. Speaker! Full-time work should be the starting point in the labor market. At the same time, the regulatory framework must meet the employers' need for flexibility and the employees' desire to work to a different extent than full-time.

The Christian Democrats consider that the regulatory framework we have today is well-designed to handle the various demands that exist. At the same time, there is a need for more tools and increased room for flexibility that makes it possible to combine a high labor market participation with a functioning leisure and family life.

Mr. Speaker! It is positive that technology is developing. It makes it possible to create new services and jobs via digital platforms. An important task for politics and the labor market parties is to create a good environment for entrepreneurship and innovations, which creates opportunities for new companies and ensures that more people get into work. As the technological development moves forward, new solutions are also required for the social and labor law challenges that arise as part of the development.

It is also important that we all together in a changing world safeguard the Swedish model, especially in relation to the EU.

Mr. Speaker! Even though we have 422,000 unemployed people who need to get into work, we know that many companies have difficulty obtaining the labor they demand. Eight out of ten companies state that they have difficulty recruiting and finding the right competence.

From this perspective, I am pleased that we now have an agreement regarding labor immigration which means that those who come here receive a reasonable wage, while at the same time we open for exceptions within shortage occupations and ensure that seasonal work within agriculture and forestry as well as the berry and jam industry is secured. It is good, as we need to ensure that both the business sector and the public sector receive the labor that is needed.

Mr. Speaker! The staffing companies' annual report 2021 shows that there were 190,700 people who were employed in the staffing industry at some point during the year. Of these, 102,000 were permanently employed in the industry. This means that approximately 2 percent of the employed population performed their work in the staffing industry in 2021.

As a Christian Democrat, I note that all workers in the labor market shall be guaranteed good and secure working conditions. The staffing industry and all those who in different ways perform work as temporarily hired personnel are important actors in the Swedish labor market. Many times it is within these occupations, as well as in other service-dominated industries, that young people and immigrants get their first job. It is important that we, together with the labor market's partners, facilitate for these industries.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

I also want to take the opportunity to answer Ciczie Weidby's questions.

For me as a Christian Democrat, it is extremely important that we constantly look at the functioning of the labor market. We enact laws, but it is the parties in the labor market who work with them.

I refrain from commenting on individual companies, as I do not really know what the individual negotiations have looked like. But on the principled level, we Christian Democrats are very satisfied with the order we have today and extremely satisfied that we have the Swedish labor market model. It has functioned well, and it has served Sweden well. There will probably always be individual negotiations that one can have views on. But fundamentally, we have a well-functioning labor market, and that is something I am proud of.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that I must rise when Magnus Jacobsson calls on me.

It would be absolutely best if politics stayed away from enacting laws. Then the simple question returns as to why it was so fantastically important to worsen labor rights, as we did this spring. We made it easier to dismiss and created fewer exceptions in the security of re-employment. Why, in that case, was it important to worsen labor rights for so many people, as we did?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This spring I sat in the Committee on Transport and focused my brain on how we are to get the infrastructure in this country to function well. At the same time, I have followed labor market issues somewhat on the side.

It is fundamental questions that Ciczie is touching upon, namely how a labor market functions and how we get those who stand far from the labor market to enter the labor market. As I said in my speech, we have people who stand outside the labor market, and we want nothing more than for them to become a part of society and a part of a social community.

There is a breaking point here between security, which I believe we all appreciate, and flexibility. Flexibility allows one to change jobs and sometimes even be forced to change jobs.

I believe that many of us have studied the Danes and the Danish model and how it functions. When I sat in the Riksdag 1998-2002, I sat in the Committee on Employment. At that time, New Zealand was studied to see how they worked with these issues there.

It is an eternal field of tension or an eternal struggle between the secure and the flexible. But in all of this, it is still the case that the parties in the labor market have met. They have gone through the issue and landed on an agreement, and we have stood behind that agreement.

Now that settlement must be allowed to settle for a while before we go in and start pulling at it, so even though I can understand the concern that Vänsterpartiet raises, it is extremely important that we in politics are not constantly in there pulling at the system. Then we will create even greater concern.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! There are so many threads one wants to grab hold of here.

Magnus Jacobsson speaks, for example, about the Danish model with so-called flexicurity. I can inform Magnus that the committee was in Denmark during the previous parliamentary term.

What one notices when traveling to Denmark and studying what it means to have greater flexibility in labor market policy is that one cannot just have flexibility, but one must also have security. It lies, as it were, in the very name.

In Denmark, they were quite surprised by how incredibly flexible labor law we already had in Sweden, how incredibly low job security we had in Sweden, and how common it was that people did not work full-time.

It is still the case that full-time is in no way the norm, even if one says that it should be the norm. Go to any shop! There is no one who works full-time there. Go to a restaurant! The chefs might work full-time, but there is no one else who works full-time there.

It is said that we should have more flexibility when the Swedish labor market model already offers very much flexibility and our legislation is as incredibly flexible as it is. But we nibble away at our security all the time, and it is very serious. Then there will be no flexicurity. Then it will only be flexibility - but never of care for the vulnerable, but only for those who employ people.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats are a conservative party which, unlike many other conservative parties, has a long trade union tradition, especially in Europe. This very issue, the struggle between security and flexibility, does not exist only in Sweden.

Ciczie Weidby points out, Mr. Speaker, a number of industries that very rightly often have less security in the sense that one does not have as many full-time positions as many other industries. At the same time, it is precisely these industries that often offer an opportunity to enter the labor market. Many young people start there, continue their studies, and later work with something else.

I myself come from the security industry, which also has very strange working hours. One can take something like the rest day, for example. If you work a twelve-hour shift, the rest day is twelve hours, and if you work an eight-hour shift, it is eight hours. It is not always that the legislation reaches perfect fairness.

But the point of my speech, Mr. Speaker, is that the Swedish model tries to capture this. The Swedish model, which we defend towards our European friends, tries to capture this in the form of basic legislation, and then it is the parties who negotiate. I have the greatest respect for this model, because I believe it has served us well. I wish that the Left Party stood more behind it.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! During the recent parliamentary terms, the Swedish and the global economy have been subjected to a long series of crises. The financial crisis, the euro crisis, the corona pandemic, and now Russia's full-scale and illegal war against Ukraine have all left deep marks on the Swedish economy and created great challenges on the Swedish labor market.

We are currently in a very tough economic situation, with great uncertainty about how the economy will be affected in the short and long term. The uncertainty in the economy and in the labor market is significantly greater than it has been in a very long time. This obviously affects both the global as well as the domestic labor market, where unemployment is expected to increase further and employment to fall back. More people should work; more young boys and girls should see their parents go to work.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Center Party, within the framework of the January Agreement, pushed through historical reforms of the Swedish labor market, with a comprehensive transition package, a major reform of the matching, and not least a modern labor law. The new, more modern labor law means that we get a more flexible labor market that fits today's society better. This means great improvements for both people and companies and has laid a foundation for many more new jobs to be able to emerge.

We live in a changing world where development often happens very quickly. Society does not look the same today as it did twenty, ten, or even five years ago. This also applies to the labor market – digitalization, automation, workers' expectations, and demands on employers. Just like society at large, the Swedish labor market is in constant change. It is necessary that laws and regulations and the labor market's rules of the game change accordingly.

The corona pandemic was terrible in many ways and forced us to work in ways other than we have historically. It forced both employees and employers to be flexible, to adapt, and to think anew. There are many times a before and an after the pandemic. The direction of the January Agreement with a new, modern labor law was necessary, and we now stand better equipped to meet the challenges of society and the labor market in a new era.

But we still have regulations in the labor market today that were written decades ago, in a time when the largest companies accounted for the jobs. That is no longer the case. Now, it is small and growing companies that are increasingly responsible for job creation. A good deal of laws and rules are simply not adapted to today's labor market and business life and even risk hindering the emergence of tomorrow's jobs and, in the long run, threatening Sweden's international competitiveness. In many places around our elongated country, the small and growing companies are furthermore crucial for the revitalization of the business sector and the local labor market.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say a few brief words about labor law and the EU. The European Pillar of Social Rights has, despite the promise that it would not conflict with the member states' existing labor market policies, led to a number of legally binding initiatives from the Commission in the social and labor market policy area. Several of the proposals are now adopted and constitute binding legislation in the member states.

In line with the fact that even more concrete proposals for the implementation of the social pillar are being presented, it has become clear that the Swedish labor market model is truly under threat and will not remain in its current form if the proposals continue to be implemented at the pace at which they are currently occurring.

For the Center Party, it has always been clear that decisions regarding the labor market and social safety nets need to be made based on how they look and function in each respective member state. A shift of labor market policy to the EU level risks lowering requirements and protection rather than raising them.

We do not need more legislation at the EU level in labor market issues. We need to listen to the experiences of how it works in all other countries, share our knowledge, and continue to work based on how things look in Sweden today.

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to stop here, but one almost choked on one's coffee when listening to Oliver Rosengren and the Moderaterna. Everything that the previous government did in the area of the labor market was wrong, and now the new government is going to clean up. That sounds very good!

But so far, the positions of the new government on the labor market area have been incredibly vague. The committee often does not know what the government wants. For example, when it comes to joining Denmark's lawsuit regarding the minimum wages, the government's position was extremely hesitant. It was very difficult for them to land there.

There is a great consensus in the Riksdag that we should safeguard the Swedish model and that the EU should stay far away. But then the new government must also deliver on those points. I hope that we will see a completely different clarity moving forward, because the members from the Tidö parties have not been very active during committee meetings when we have had deliberations on just EU matters. But if I interpret Oliver Rosengren correctly, there will be a difference moving forward.

In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of reservation 14.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! I couldn't help it, Jonny Cato! Jonny Cato criticizes the Moderaterna for not doing so much in the labor market area, but this is not something one can accuse the Centerpartiet of. The Centerpartiet has grand plans for exactly how much one can change labor law and make it so flexible that there is almost no labor law left.

I must hear Jonny Cato tell me how, in a dream world, he would want to change labor law even more so that it becomes even more flexible. How can one hire, or actually not hire, people even more freely and flexibly? What kind of labor market should we actually have, regardless of whether we are talking about large or small companies? That is what I am very curious about.

Jonny Cato also said in his speech that there are a huge number of old laws, and that is quite true. There are a huge number of laws from the 70s that can sometimes feel a bit dated, I also think. It is a huge number of our co-determination laws that should be further strengthened so that the workers have more to say and get more influence at their workplace. But I suspect that is not what Jonny Cato means.

What we see in these old laws is that in the 70s, one could never even think the thought that one wouldn't hire people, that one would say: Here you get a contract for zero hours. That could not be imagined, and neither could it be imagined that it would be trimmed and just ignore seniority rules. Those are some reflections I have for Jonny Cato.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ciczie Weidby, for the questions! It is no secret that the Center Party and the Left Party have fundamentally different views on the labor market. But I intended to take off from where the member ended.

My point is precisely that the labor market does not look the way it did in the 1970s. We need to change the labor market based on the time we live in and based on the conditions we have today. The demands from the employees are different. My generation places different demands on employers than my parents' generation did.

Automation, digitalization, the corona pandemic - there is much that plays a role and that makes the labor market look different today than it did previously.

It is true that we in Centerpartiet got much of our policy through within the framework of the January agreement regarding the labor market. I am very proud that the labor market parties reached an agreement, even though it was obviously under pressure from the political side, which the Vänsterpartiet will surely point out, so I am saying it already now. But I think it is good. Sometimes pressure was needed, and it was needed in this case.

What is important now is that the reform is not finished. It is a matter of constantly listening to the parties in the labor market. I have had a good dialogue with both sides, such as trade unions and employer organizations and so on. I hope that the government has as well, and that one can constantly change this based on how the situation arises.

If there is anything we have learned from the major reforms during the past decades, it is that it is not enough to just implement major reforms, one must also follow up on them, adjust them, and see what can be improved. And I think that is important to do going forward. That may be my dream. But I will also say that I am very proud of much of what we got through during the last parliamentary term.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! One must be glad for Jonny Cato's sake that he is satisfied with it.

I am very curious about what kind of requirements or lack of requirements Jonny Cato and his generation have. Is it the case that Jonny Cato and his generation do not have a need to have a secure employment? Is it the case that that generation suddenly does not need to feel that one can stay at one and the same workplace for a longer period and feel security in that? It is about being able to feel secure and knowing that one will be at the same workplace for a couple of years, and one might also have met someone that one would like to start a family with, and so on.

The problem is that people are constantly saying that it is new times now. No one wants to stay for long at one and the same workplace. One has to go here and one has to go there. The question is what has created what. Is the new generation's jumping between different workplaces really just about the fact that that is how it is nowadays? Or is it that this is the only way to support oneself? You are never allowed to stay anywhere. There are project employments left and right. It is not only within trade, hotel, and restaurant that people work extra, but it also concerns people with high educations who do not get any employment.

The precariat that has emerged now is completely senseless. The question is whether this is something that has actually been demanded or if it has just become so. We can discuss that, just as what is said about that one no longer demands security.

I see that I have too few seconds left. I would very much like to talk more about the new technology and platforms, how we order services and goods, who it is that performs the work and under what conditions. But I hope that we get a reason to return to this.

As said: What requirements or non-requirements are it that Jonny Cato and his generation have on the labor market? That was the question I tried to ask at the beginning.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is exactly the challenge. All people are different. We all want to work in different ways. We all expect different things when we get up in the morning, and we have different ideas about what is our dream world to live and work in. That is why we need to have a flexible labor market that suits everyone.

Even my generation wants security, but security may not look the same as it did, for example, in the 1970s. We cannot get stuck in the image that everything on the labor market was better before, but society is changing, and so is the labor market.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech earlier, I said that there is no threat to labor rights in this chamber. But I obviously forgot the Center Party. I apologize for that.

Center Party member Jonny Cato speaks about a vague labor market policy that is rounded at the edges. One does not really know what it is that is supposed to come.

Let me take the other end of that comparison. When the Center Party entered into what Jonny Cato is obviously very proud of, namely the January Agreement, people spoke about the grand plans for the labor market policy a couple of days before the long government labor market investigation was to be presented. One might have thought it could have been a good point to first take part of the results of Cecilia Fahlberg's investigation, which for several years had looked at how one could reform Arbetsförmedlingen. But Jonny Cato or his colleague Martin Ådahl could not wait. No, there was an opportunity for a press conference, and then one must obviously tell how it is going to happen before one has the underlying documents on the table. These are grand words, but it is sloppy and lazy introduction.

One wonders what it is that Jonny Cato is so proud of regarding the labor market policy that was put in place. Ultimately, it was not the Centerpartiet's visions, but rather the parties' agreements that became contracts. No, when the posters are allowed to take precedence over the politics and the advertising over the reforms, it doesn't result in anything more than this, and it is dull.

But tell me now, Jonny Cato: Which is the next reform that the Center Party wants to steamroll the parties with during this mandate period, if the Center Party were to decide?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will tell you what one got with the Center Party. One got a large and extensive reforming of the Public Employment Service. One got an extensive new transition support in place, and one got a modern labor law. It is bourgeois liberal policy. With the Moderates and the Tidö group, one got an increased unemployment insurance.

I truly thought and really believed that the Moderaterna would be able to see the positive in what the Centerpartiet got through and what Anders Borg, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Moderaterna and the Alliance government did not have the patience to do, that is to say, to change the labor law and change Arbetsförmedlingen, but no.

If the member thinks that we take every chance for a press conference, one could say that the Moderaterna take every chance they can to strike at the Centerpartiet, even if it concerns matters that they themselves have felt for a long time, for example, changing and modernizing labor law.

This matter regarding the transition study support and the reform of Arbetsförmedlingen are things that, not least Oliver Rosengren's own generation from the "Sverige jobbar" era in MUF were clear about and wanted to implement. But then it became bad just because the Centerpartiet got it through. That is how the new Moderaterna - the new-new, or whatever one should call them - act. As soon as the Centerpartiet gets something through, it is bad, regardless of what has been said previously and regardless of what one actually thinks.

I believe that Sweden is at its best when Sweden works. Therefore, I am proud that we modernized labor law. We got a large and extensive transition support in place, and we got a reforming of Arbetsförmedlingen.

These are major reforms that have been initiated, but they require a lot moving forward. Now the Moderaterna have the keys to Rosenbad. Now you can drive a continued transition in the direction you want, for which we have given you the prerequisites and opportunities to do so.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is talk here about the grand employment agency reform. One wonders a bit what the revolutionary result will be of moving from 80 percent outsourced execution to 100 percent outsourced execution?

It was perhaps not exactly a revolution in labor market policy that took place when the Center Party's Martin Ådahl reform of Arbetsförmedlingen was implemented. One was first to divide Arbetsförmedlingen into two legs, one leg for job seekers and one leg for employers. It was implemented, and a couple of years later it had to be scrapped. One started a large digitalization project, and a couple of years later it had to be shut down. Yes, it is not a reform that impresses in all parts. There are moments when one has observed the AF reform and felt that the maiden voyage of the battleship Vasa was, after all, a success.

Now we are in a new reality with a government that seriously intends to ensure that Arbetsförmedlingen delivers results. As recently as this morning, people were speaking directly to Arbetsförmedlingen in a seminar about measures and said: We expect more in labor market measures, because we intend to shift labor market policy towards the measures that work.

When it comes to labor law, which we are here to debate, one should remember that we in the Moderaterna love the Swedish model. We know that the Swedish model has served Sweden well and that we can achieve stability and flexibility together when the parties take responsibility. Politics is, of course, one of these parties. It is, just as I said in my speech, the third party that needs to represent those without work and that keeps the drivers up, keeps the thresholds down, and ensures that Sweden works.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! It seems to be a new strategy for the Moderates to attack individual Center Party members. In the program 30 minutes, the Migration Minister put everything on Annie Lööf, and now Oliver Rosengren is putting everything on Martin Ådahl. We are proud of the Center Party reform. It was, at least I believed, alliance politics that we pushed through.

When it comes to the Swedish model, Oliver Rosengren knows that the Center Party also stands behind and protects it. I think it was good that the parties reached an agreement. The Center Party said on several occasions that we hoped the parties could reach an agreement, and they did so as well.

Centerpartiet pushed through major reforms. These were bad, according to the member, but I can state that everything will be better now because the Moderaterna had a seminar this morning.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! Over 7 percent unemployment at the same time as employers in regions, municipalities, and the private sector are crying out for labor - how is that possible? How can one, over the last eight years, have failed so totally with the labor market policy? How can one have so totally missed matching the large part that stands outside the labor market with the gaps that exist?

In the recent debates, we have heard new tones. Now all the parties in the Riksdag are saying that those who have the capacity to work should work. That is good, but then we must be prepared to change the structures and incentives that hinder this.

In recent years, I have met Sadoo several times, who is the owner of one of Skåne's restaurants and whose grandfather, moreover, introduced falafel to Malmö. Sadoo today runs Lebanese restaurants where he gladly employs new employees from areas of exclusion. He has witnessed how employees choose to resign because they lose money by going to work. They lose power over their own lives and become less free to shape their and their children's future. This must be changed immediately.

It is actually completely unreasonable that it can be profitable to turn down work and instead receive the benefits that are available. I look forward to our government dismantling structures and obstacles so that it is always better economically to work than to receive benefits. Long live the work line!

If Sweden is to overcome its competence shortage within the welfare sector but also within industry and private service companies, we must include everyone with the capacity to work. Often, it is not eight hours a day that applies, but adaptations are often needed. Above all, individual consideration and support are required for both employees and employers.

Several of us listened to a seminar in February and heard about organizations that succeed in meeting those who do not fit the mold. Building a system and then forcing individuals' prerequisites, competence, and dreams into ready-made molds works quite poorly. Perhaps we can turn the tables and start from each individual's dreams and opportunities. Can our state authorities do that, or must we seek help from private and non-profit organizations? Now it is up to be proven.

Arbetsförmedlingen must continue to think anew and deliver better from its mandate. The group that stands furthest away from the labor market risks falling further behind now that warnings and insecurity are increasing. It is not enough for Arbetsförmedlingen to have a surplus in wage subsidies and adjustments; instead, the money must go to the large groups who want nothing more than to be a part of the labor market and whom the employers need.

On the labor market, things are moving fast, and new competencies are being demanded, as well as more flexibility and new forms of employment. We must dare to test boundaries, stay at the forefront, and be brave in our decisions.

It will be exciting to see if the new transition support that the labor market parties have negotiated can provide both more flexibility and security in the labor market. We are all following with great interest what effects it will have.

Education is the liberal answer to the vast majority of problems and challenges in society. A good school that culminates in a high school diploma is the best unemployment insurance that exists.

Most of us have marveled at the shortage of labor in craft professions but also in nurses, bus drivers, and industrial jobs. I get so tired of that some jobs are considered less fine just because the education contains fewer theoretical elements.

How is it that educations that lead to jobs and have good salary development are so often considered unattractive when our youth or older people are to choose? It is perhaps because they are often located outside the city center, that the admission points are low, and that the encouragement and interest for these educations in the academic world is lukewarm. Or perhaps it is because practical craft occupations have been devalued by us politicians for many years. There, our municipal representatives have a major task to think anew and boldly. All jobs are valuable, not least in the industries where there is a crying need for staff.

Right now, I am reflecting with my 15-year-old Truls at the kitchen table about what he will become when he grows up. Which path should he choose, and what conditions exist for jobs and stimulating work where one can sustain a whole working life? The only thing we can be really sure of is that the jobs we choose between today might have completely changed in 20 years. When I chose my upper secondary education, professions like drone pilot, Zumba instructor, or nutritionist did not exist. On the other hand, professions such as switchboard operator, milk delivery man, or bowling alley pin boy no longer exist. Pin boys worked in bowling alleys, if anyone has missed that.

To force through or return to a system as a liberal where there is only one gymnasium to choose from is the wrong way to go. Nevertheless, we cannot continue to educate citizens for jobs that are not in demand or for which there is no need.

It is required that we take a new approach where we, in a structured way already in school, promote the subjects that the company Sverige AB requests: math, technology and so on. After that, we must provide proper consumer information so that it becomes easy to choose paths that provide both development and the opportunity for self-sufficiency.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a reservation regarding the report.

I will not give a long speech, but I intended to simply read out our position.

Mr. Speaker! I welcome that the committee sees the need for both women's and men's participation in the Swedish labor market. I regret, however, that the committee, the government, and the government's coalition parties do not see the need to take further steps to meet the challenges that primarily women have in being able to perform their work to the extent they themselves desire.

We have today a situation in the female-dominated industries, especially health and social care, where many women are burning themselves out or working involuntary part-time.

According to a report from Kommunalarbetareförbundet, seven out of ten of their members in elderly care and childcare feel a concern that their pension will not be sufficient or that they will not be able to manage to work until retirement age.

Many workers have reduced their hours to cope or are considering leaving the profession. Several colleagues are a basic prerequisite, but better conditions and higher wages are also needed.

I therefore consider that the government should take the initiative to introduce a right to full-time and the possibility of part-time. Furthermore, I consider that the government should take the initiative for measures so that publicly funded employers can lead the way and offer full-time as the norm and part-time as a possibility to all their employees. With this said, I move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation.

Labor law

I would also like to comment on the exchange between Ciczie Weidby and Magnus Jacobsson. When it comes to the words flexibility, streamlining, and modernization, I vomit at them. Forgive my language. It is the market fundamentalists' way of saying worse conditions, savings, and starvation wages.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

Integration

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