Labor law

Magnus Persson (SD)

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

The Sweden Democrats have for a longer period 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 both to get more companies to emerge in Sweden and to give parents an opportunity to prepare for the upcoming parenthood.

These are questions that we have highlighted in our committee motions, together with sharp proposals that the government reviews the relevant parts of the leave legislation.

Madam Speaker! 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 on the Swedish labor market. There are reasons to let this reform now fully take effect on the labor market before initiatives are taken for any new reforms. Therefore, we follow up our position with a special statement.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats also want to emphasize that Sweden has a strong and well-functioning labor market model. It is important that the political trade-offs made in the labor market area are made with the protection of this successful model in focus. The Sweden Democrats will always be a gatekeeper against all parties that want to move more power to the EU in issues linked to Swedish labor market policy.

Madam Speaker! The introduction of the EU's social pillar, a project pushed forward by the Löfven government in 2017, has shown that our Swedish labor market model is now truly being put to the test. One may wonder whether the Social Democratic government at that time actually understood the consequences of its actions.

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 reforms that have the Swedish labor market model in mind. Like other reforms, Speaker, this one also struggles with problems that must be managed, for example, the proposal on transition study support, which is an important part that must be made to work for the future.

We share much of the criticism that the parties have put forward regarding how it has been made to work until now. There is significantly more to be done, so it is an issue that I hope the government prioritizes.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by emphasizing the Tidö Agreement where the coalition parties Sweden Democrats, Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals state that the parties agree to take responsibility for Sweden in a joint cooperation moving forward and where we expect all parties to uphold their part of the agreement.

This is set against the opposition's government basis, which clearly points to a constellation in some form between the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party. It is a basis that is significantly fragmented even within the area we are debating now. There are many questions to be asked here that are very important for the voters and that we will surely return to in the future, for example, how one views the deployment directive, a directive that some from the opposition want to tear up. Instead, they want to reintroduce the order that applied before Lex Laval, a proposal that would open up for increased wage dumping and be devastating, especially for Swedish construction workers. It would be a real death blow to the Swedish labor market model.

The proposal to legislate for shorter working hours has previously only been driven by Vänsterpartiet, but now parts of Socialdemokraterna are signaling that they want to review this, even though the party appears very divided on the issue so far.

Madam Speaker! These are questions that we are guaranteed to return to in future debates.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! On behalf of the Social Democrats, I would first like to move for approval of reservations 13 and 16.

Labor law regulates one of the most important things in our lives: work. It concerns what obligations and rights both employees and employers have. It is simply the regulation of an existence that characterizes a large part of our lives.

Working life is characterized by a power relationship between the employer and the employee, and it is not an equal relationship. For this reason, the legislator has decided that the power relationship should be regulated to become somewhat more equal. The Employment Protection Act, the Co-determination Act, the Working Hours Act, the Annual Leave Act, and other types of legislation have been developed for precisely that reason: to level out the unequal power balance that exists in working life.

This is not the result of any divine power but of hard and persistent struggle over a long period. It is the result of a highly conscious political struggle of the Swedish and international workers' movement.

As a Social Democrat, I could devote my entire speech to trying to raise awareness of the political dimension of labor law. However, I do not intend to do that. Instead, I intend now to set out the Social Democratic position on the labor law issues addressed in this motion report.

Madam Speaker! Fundamental to Swedish labor law, now as then, is the so-called Swedish model. It is a model that implies that large parts of the labor market's conditions and rules are handled by the parties.

The model is based on a large and extensive shared responsibility between the parties, a responsibility that has functioned well so far. Few other countries can boast of Sweden's growth, good working conditions, and a low number of conflict days over time. It is something we should be proud of and continue to work for.

Nor this is something that has arisen through a divine power descended from heaven, but it is the result of highly conscious efforts.

Unfortunately, we see that there are those who do not want to take the responsibility that the Swedish model entails. Either the Swedish model is rejected entirely, which further disrupts the balance of power on the Swedish labor market and harms growth, or workers are exploited. We see frightening examples of modern day-labor, workers forced to sleep at workplaces in containers, and workers forced to work far too much for far too low a wage. It is completely unacceptable that we have such phenomena on the Swedish labor market. The pursuit of profit must never take precedence over ordinary people's right to life and health.

An initiative from previous Social Democratic governments to spread this mindset is Global Deal. The Social Democrats regret that the government's ambitions regarding Global Deal and fair trade appear to have been lowered compared to the previous government's. The fruits of globalization need to be distributed equally. The work with fair free trade needs to be strengthened and continue with untiring force. Sweden has shown that it is possible.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats would also have liked to see the government do more regarding contractor liability. We see today that it occurs that employers bypass the obligations that the law on contractor liability entails, even though the law works well in large parts. There is a completed investigation on the table stating that hired personnel need to be covered by the legislation. We Social Democrats would have welcomed the committee clearly taking a stand on this and regret that this is not happening.

What characterizes a large part of the debate within the field of labor law right now is the right to strike and issues linked to this. Few of us were bold enough to believe a year ago that this issue would receive the space it has now received. The conflict currently ongoing on the Swedish labor market between IF Metall and Tesla, with the aim of getting Tesla to sign collective agreements, has however caused a good number of debaters to air ideas about restricting ordinary workers' right to use conflict measures.

As I previously stated, there is a fundamental and extensive inequality in the relationship between employer and employee. Workers' right to organize and use conflict measures to achieve more and stronger rights is a fundamental part of reducing this unequal relationship. To change the possibility of sympathy measures for Swedish employees and employee organizations would be to further strengthen the inequality in the power relationship that exists. It would be to send Sweden and the Swedish labor market back to what we believed was a bygone era when the employers' power was even stronger than today.

The goal of politics must be to reduce power imbalances and inequality in society. It is, at least, a clear task for Swedish social democracy. With that in mind, we social democrats will always stand up for workers' right to organize and to use industrial actions within the framework of the law to stand up for their rights.

Madam Speaker! For the Social Democrats, it is also continued importance that the parties take responsibility for the Swedish model and that labor law issues and conditions can be resolved between the parties in dialogue and negotiations. More need to be incorporated into the Swedish model.

It is with concern that we see a development where more and more companies choose to view their employees as anything other than workers. This results, among other things, in that responsibility for the work environment is not taken and that collective agreements are not signed. It is fundamentally an order that threatens the Swedish labor market model that has given us growth and prosperity. More companies that hire, for example, food delivery couriers need to take responsibility for the work environment, and more need to sign collective agreements. Thus, we uphold the world's most successful labor market model.

Another unwanted phenomenon that has emerged on the Swedish labor market in recent years is the so-called "trimming" (hyvlingen). Employees may indeed be able to keep their employment, but the scope of that employment is cut significantly. People who previously worked full-time may see their employment converted to part-time or barely more. It is an unreasonable arrangement in the long run that hits Swedish wage earners hard, for example within retail. It is not uncommon that it is young people who do not get loan approvals or can plan their lives as a result of this. Even here, the parties must take their responsibility and ensure that this arrangement ceases. The norm on the Swedish labor market shall be permanent employment on a full-time basis. Period.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. The winds of change are blowing fast and strongly. But let not insecure employment, worsened rights for wage earners, lower collective agreement coverage, and other deteriorations of wage earners' position on the labor market be masked in fluffy words such as modernization or as something predestined! Swedish wage earners - both young and old - deserve to have good working lives and working conditions.

The Swedish model will serve Sweden well if it is maintained. It requires a shared responsibility from the parties: employee organizations and employer organizations. The Swedish model has shown, time and again, that it is best suited to give Swedish wage earners the rights they deserve and give the country Sweden good and sustainable growth over time. This is the Social Democrats' firm conviction and something that we will stand up and fight for every day of the week.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The labor market is in constant change. The Swedish model contributes to both stability and flexibility in the labor market. The parties' will to reach agreements, resolve conflicts, and jointly contribute to both high growth and a functional labor market serves the Swedish people well.

Everyone who can work shall work. Therefore, rules, incentives, and support must be designed to create the conditions for full employment. Work is security, community, and access to the growing prosperity. A stable and predictable labor law is important for the labor market. The importance of labor law grows now that the economy is in a recession. The Swedish model builds resilience in the economy. People should not be tossed about like chaff.

Madam Speaker! In last year's debate on labor law, I said that the EU is the only realistic threat to the Swedish model, caused by Social Democratic initiatives for social summits and a social pillar. But this year, the Social Democrats have submitted a motion to protect the Swedish model from the EU. It is clear that it is better to be wise after the fact than to be preoccupied with prestige.

In last year's debate, I had to correct myself because I had forgotten the Center Party. Of course, it was the Center Party that was possibly that threat to the right to work that I claimed might not exist in this chamber but rather in the EU. It is therefore somewhat worrying, Madam Speaker, that the Social Democrats now seem to have been influenced by their coalition partner's view on the Swedish model and question the parties' ability to handle the issue of working hours.

Sweden needs more police, shorter healthcare queues, a stronger defense, increased teacher density, and more nursing assistants in home care. Sweden has great needs, and after eight years without growth reforms and with a Social Democratic government, Sweden also has the EU's lowest growth.

Many people have it difficult at work and with balancing the puzzle of life. It is clear that in a future with technological progress and high growth and without difficult recruitment problems in the core of the welfare sector, the parties can agree within the framework of the Swedish model to take out parts of the economic development in more leisure time and not just in more consumption. Many people toil in physically demanding jobs, not least in the core of the welfare sector. There, it is difficult and for some impossible to manage working full-time until retirement. The same people, often women, also work much more than full-time if one counts in the unpaid domestic work.

Madam Speaker! Statutory reduction of working hours - for example a six-hour workday - would mean that every fourth operation is cancelled, every fourth arrest of criminals does not take place, every fourth lesson is left without a teacher, and every fourth home care visit is scrapped. To argue that fewer hours can be compensated for with increased productivity is almost disrespectful. If 25 percent fewer hours were worked, it would mean a requirement for 33 percent higher productivity during the remaining hours. It is possible that there are office jobs in the service sector where such a productivity increase is possible, but no one can trick me into believing that an already pressured nursing assistant can perform 33 percent more visits per hour or that a teacher can lead 33 percent more lessons per hour. The equation does not add up.

In the preparatory work, the Social Democrats argue that more people should have the right to full-time work. Here, the policy should rather take initiatives concerning how more people can manage to work full-time and manage to work a longer working life.

Madam Speaker! More hours worked does not necessarily mean that those who work must work more hours per week, even though it is important that some do. This applies in particular to those who do not have a physically demanding job. Therefore, it is important to have a lower tax on the extra hour worked and lower marginal taxes. It is also important to have a more equal distribution of unpaid household work. If employees in the public sector, often women, are to work less while entrepreneurs and others in the private sector, more often men, are to work more than standard working hours, it risks becoming a setback for equality in the labor market. Women will then have more time for children, cleaning, and cooking while the men continue to work more.

The working environment, transition, and drivers for work are the areas that need to be developed. Wear and tear in work needs to decrease, the opportunities to change careers in the middle of life need to increase, and it needs to pay more to work more and longer. The transition reform referred to in our report is an example of an important measure to extend working life for more people.

To strengthen Sweden's prosperity and welfare, everyone needs to help each other. We work for our own sake and to collectively finance the common good. Sweden can become wealthier again, and that requires more work.

The core task of politics within labor law is that people should be secure in the labor market. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in this report.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Oliver Rosengren and I actually debated working hours on the radio last week, so I am a bit eager to bring it up, even though I did not think we would be talking about working hours today.

There were some questions I asked last week but did not receive answers to then. When Oliver Rosengren and the Moderaterna say that more people should be in work, he is obviously right in that. But the question is: How do you attract more people to work in occupations that are stressful and demanding and cause many to wear themselves out and become signed off on sick leave? The Moderaterna presents this very rarely. The question is actually how one is supposed to manage to work in certain industries when it becomes longer and longer until retirement.

In care professions and in trade, which I come from, people often do not have full-time. There, it is very common that one might have 25 or possibly 30 hours on contract, partly because the employer wants their flexibility, partly because the schedules very often become quite bad if one has full-time.

Therefore, I think that the normal working time can just as well be exactly 30 hours, in order to just attract people into these professions and so that everyone can manage to work all the way until retirement.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ciczie Weidby, for the questions!

The Moderates and the Tidö parties have not given up the ambitions regarding ensuring that the working environment becomes sufficiently good in the Swedish labor market so that people can manage to work a full professional life and manage to work full-time.

It is clear that a number of different improvements are required in the labor market. One of the important parts, which particularly affects women in the public sector, concerns the distribution of unpaid domestic work. It needs to become more fair and equal. It is not reasonable that, in addition to toiling with physical work when one is employed, one should come home and continue to work far more than full-time, for that is what it becomes if one combines these two types of work.

The work environment also needs to be improved with technological development, new tools, better scheduling, and so on. It must be possible to change professions. It may not be possible to create an even longer working life in physically demanding welfare jobs, and in that case, we must ensure that the transition reform can fulfill the function it is intended to have.

There is a gap in the logic in the Left Party's reasoning. If we legislate for a reduction in working hours, we would then get, for example, a six-hour workday both in the welfare jobs that we need to attract more people to and in the jobs that those who have left welfare jobs have moved into. In that case, the shorter working time still does not become a competitive advantage for welfare compared to the other jobs. On the contrary, the working environment will continue to be the point where they differ, and therefore we cannot give up when it comes to that.

Fixing the work environment will be what determines whether we can attract more people to the welfare sector. One will work just as much or just as little if the legislative path cuts the working hours.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! It is truly pleasing and moving that the Moderaterna speak so well about improving the working environment. On that, we agree. But unfortunately, we see no proposals in that specific area, but perhaps they are on the way. We do have debates regarding the working environment coming up.

I also share Oliver Rosengren's analysis that housework is very unevenly distributed, and then one can wonder what we should do to address it. What do we do about ingrained gender patterns that make women very often the ones who take the greatest responsibility? What is it that makes it always women who take a larger portion of the parental leave and so on?

One can always claim that it is up to each family to decide everything and that we should not legislate on matters. But we have still done so over the last 100 years. In the year I was born, 1974, it finally became so that fathers could also be at home with their children. Many protested and thought it was quite ridiculous, because it was still the women's task to take care of the children. But over time, people have started to think it is quite reasonable that both parents, regardless of whether it is two fathers, two mothers, and so on, actually share the parental leave and also share the work at home. Now we are not going to debate shared parental leave, but it could, therefore, be a way to go.

Oliver Rosengren, what proposals are there regarding improving the work environment so that women will want to stay, and with what political proposals can one address that women often work double while men do not?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! One of the obvious measures to make it easier to manage the work is not to remove every fourth hour of worked time from colleagues, because then there will be fewer of them. This is probably one of the reasons why SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, has stated that they are opposed to statutory reduction of working hours. In that case, in addition to the 81,000 who need to be recruited by 2031, an additional 41,000 would be needed to maintain current levels. This will make the situation more difficult for many of those who today struggle with already pressured schedules and an already stressful everyday life, not least in the core of the welfare sector. A measure that we unequivocally shall not take within labor law is, therefore, statutory reduction of working hours.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! It is now time for the annual AMT debate on labor law. In the report we are now debating, AU5, there are 16 reservations, and ten of them are from Vänsterpartiet. Among all these, I support reservation 4, and I will devote large parts of my speech to the platform economy.

It is about the day labor of the new era, which in everyday speech is called gig work. There are still those who see it as a new and fresh phenomenon in the Swedish labor market and that it is good that one gets a bit of gig work to enter the labor market.

But it is still a fact that platform companies today very rarely are considered as employers and that the majority of platform workers are not considered as employees. This means that these workers miss out on several of the rights and also the job security that employees have. It also means that the platform companies do not need to take any workplace environment responsibility for the non-employed workers.

Furthermore, it is very difficult for platform workers to become members of and be represented by trade unions because the unions generally target employees and defend their rights in relation to an employer.

In addition to this, there are a multitude of other problems, such as wage insecurity, social insecurity, and time insecurity. The vulnerability of platform workers is extensive, and it is truly regrettable that the committee does not see the great need that exists to address these problems.

I believe that the starting point must be that the platform companies shall be regarded precisely as employers and that these workers shall be regarded as employees. But that requires a changed legislation that actually clarifies it. It is obvious that neither the current legislation and case law nor the level of ambition from the right-wing government will lead to an improvement in the conditions for these workers.

The Platform Directive is probably not the only solution to the extensive problems that platform work entails and is perhaps also likely not a sufficient one. But it is still a step along the way to change the workers' conditions both in Sweden and in the EU. I mean that the Commission's directive proposal should be implemented in its original form with the addition of the improvements that were made when Parliament dealt with the issue and which the left in Parliament stands behind.

Madam Speaker! The new agreement regarding the platform directive differs significantly from the one in December, primarily by completely removing the controversial criteria which, according to the previous version, would have meant that platform workers who met them would automatically be counted as employees and not as self-employed.

The new proposal means that the platform directive will largely become completely meaningless because the Swedish model, where the parties in the labor market negotiate wages and conditions, does not cover gig work when there are no parties on paper. The workforce is not classified as employees, and the companies are not classified as employers.

Swedish legislation must really be reviewed regarding this. The roles that prevail on the labor market must be clarified.

Madam Speaker! I almost never take a taxi, but I very much enjoy talking to taxi drivers. One of them is named Cathrine Lind. But she is best known as Taximammi, both in the Uber app and on social media. Yesterday, she wrote a rather long post on Instagram. I will not read the whole thing, but she writes as follows:

"I often hear from my passengers stories about how they have traveled with drivers who are angry. It can definitely have to do with how they drive for almost no money because Uber/Bolt dump the prices instead of ensuring that they keep drivers. Since customers choose to book cheap trips, the drivers have no big choice other than to drive since you only exist in these apps."

The drivers drive intensively, for many hours and suffer. This is because you customers are very happy to be able to book cheaply and now these foreign companies are maintained with your money, which they gladly send out of our country without paying a damn bit in tax!

I apologize for my language, but it is, in fact, a quote. Furthermore, she writes:

"The drivers who can, are quitting. It is good drivers that we are losing in the industry."

She continues writing:

"Would you buy clothes if you knew that those specific clothes were made under slave-like conditions where people suffered for the food so that you as a customer could shop cheaply? Maybe not, right? We in Sweden are good at boycotting if we understand that an international company is exploiting people."

BUT we turn a blind eye completely to what is happening here at home. Then we say 'it's not my fault, they choose for themselves'. Or do we?

It is not that simple. When the majority of customers have been indoctrinated by the app companies to choose the cheapest, and you think we are profiting, then they have won. They choose to take the cheapest and then you complain about how the drivers drive. You get the result of the app companies' nonchalance. They don't give a damn about what the quality is, as long as they get their millions to pull out of the country. Your money.

Choose to be critical of how your money ends up.

"On February 14, we drivers are closing the apps, just so you know. It is our way of showing love to ourselves and refusing to be exploited."

So, tomorrow you cannot book any taxis via any apps.

This is what it boils down to. I must nevertheless ask the question: Is it more important for the parties in this chamber that Uber, Volt, Bolt and whatever they are called and the other big global giants earn enormous amounts of money from people who perform a job where they are not given reasonable conditions?

The Social Democrats! I suspect that you are also quite satisfied now that platform work is to be regulated at the national level, but it has gone like that so far. For 15 years we have gotten nowhere. How is it intended that the Swedish collective agreement model should be able to regulate the platform companies? The Transport Workers' Union has fought for the workers' conditions for many years, but they are constantly losing because the legislation looks the way it does.

Madam Speaker! It boils down to this: If platform work continues to expand and if the way of organizing work spills over into even more areas of the labor market, the entire Swedish model is threatened. If workers are no longer seen as employees and employers are no longer seen as employers, no negotiations can take place and no collective agreements can be reached. What do we do then?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to talk about labor law and handle 45 motions. I will actually change a bit in my speech based on Ciczies last question. I think it is very exciting.

Digitalization, purely technically, leads to major changes for all of us. Ciczie highlights the gig workers. I think she does so in a meritorious way. At the same time, the question is quite complicated. Is it I who orders who is the employer? Is it the one who owns the technical platform who is the employer? Is it the one who drives who is a self-employed person? I share the analysis that this over time will force more reflections than we have today, as this type of digital services will likely emerge in more areas.

But digitalization does not stop at platform work. I believe this applies to most of us in this chamber and many others who work in the service sector - we even see it among the children in school: We have the mobile phone with us. We have the iPad with us. We take the work computer home with us. If it pings at some point in the evening, one answers an email.

When does the working time end? I might think that it is an equally complicated question if one, for example, talks about statutory working time. We are heading into a situation where we almost do not - if you understand me correctly - have working time. Very many of us, therefore, answer a question regardless of when during the day it arrives.

Madam Speaker! I actually believe that we will have to reflect much more on these questions, regardless of party affiliation and regardless of who sits in government. A change is occurring, and that change will continue to occur. We will have to contend with this.

Now this part of my speech became longer than I had intended, but I became a little inspired.

In principle, all of these 45 motions are about the Swedish model. This also makes it somewhat easy for me to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report. It accords with the Swedish model, and it is noted that the Swedish model has served us well.

If one looks at how the Swedish model works, with strong parties negotiating and resolving very many issues, one sees that it actually makes it so that we as a legislative assembly in Sweden handle fewer issues than many other parliaments do. That division of roles can almost be a bit dull for us politicians, because sometimes we have to lean back and trust the model, but as mentioned, it has served us well. It has also ensured that our country has relatively few strikes and a relatively well-functioning labor market, so I believe we should be careful with it.

The entire transition package has also been received positively. It took time. It was negotiated. But a package was still reached that led to increased flexibility but also better conditions for those who, for example, want to retrain during their time in the workforce.

We will certainly discover flaws in this model as well, Madam Speaker, but it must be allowed to settle before we step in and see what we can do there. Above all, if we are to step in and do something, we must do it in cooperation with the parties. I know that we in the chamber agree on that and that the Swedish model has strong support among all parties. I believe, moreover, that is one of the model's strengths.

There are still motions that address topics that are extremely important. All motions do that in their own way, but there are some that I have reflected on a bit more.

One issue is the employment rate. Even there, I believe we agree on many points. We shall strive for full-time employment. I believe most are in agreement on that as well regarding the labor market. I believe the parties are relatively in agreement.

Then life does not always look like that. I know myself how it was when I was a single father with three children. There were times then when I had wished to work a bit less than full-time, but I was employed full-time. Now all my children, even the 17-year-old, are so big that they perhaps do not always need dad as much as when they were younger. Yes, then I can be prepared to work more hours and work much more than six, eight, ten hours. It is also a way of looking at how working hours should function.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I am doubtful that we should make a change through legislation. I believe, in fact, that even this is a matter for the parties. I think Rosengren gave a good speech and highlighted the perspective that if we make a general change, it will be equal for everyone. Then we have not actually made any major change.

When the parties get to look at this, there will be areas where, in trade union negotiations and employer negotiations, it will be concluded that they want to change time. Such changes already exist otherwise when it comes to time, when one retires and the like. I believe that it also applies here to have respect and trust for the Swedish model.

Another area that we have had debates about here in the chamber is the work environment and the risk of accidents. In that chapter in this report, it concerns the contractors' responsibility. I believe that it is an issue that we need to take with us.

When making procurements and when purchasing services in Sweden or from other countries, it is extremely important that we have the same regulatory framework. But I do not intend to have that debate once again, but I experience that we are also in agreement on many points there. We need to have a good protection. We need to have safety representatives. We need to get this part to work, and we need to be in agreement that the basic principle is that one has the same rules of the game regardless of whether the company is registered in Sweden or in Estonia or somewhere else.

What has been the major political debate for a time regarding this area is sympathy measures. Here, Madam Speaker, I believe that we actually find ourselves in a somewhat more complicated situation.

Sweden is dependent on investments from other countries. Very many of our largest companies are owned from other countries today. I see only here at home in Western Sweden that several of our large corporations are owned by, for example, Chinese companies.

We will probably have to safeguard and defend our model. There is no question about that. But when one safeguards and defends, one will also have to consider how many resources one commits at which occasions.

I know that a few years ago there was a café in Gothenburg that was run by a single person where the entire register was entered and it was blocked to bankruptcy. In that case, it is not a discussion about the employees being the weak ones. In that context, it was actually the sole trader, the individual woman who had started the café, who was the weak party. It was she who lost.

We shall safeguard the Swedish model. We shall safeguard the right to strike, and we shall safeguard the right to sympathy actions. But one must also use them in such a way that the model functions over time.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Emelie Nyman (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Center Party's reservation 15.

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 on the labor market is significantly greater. The crises naturally affect both the global as well as the domestic labor market, where unemployment is expected to increase further and employment to fall back.

When the committee had a debate in the Riksdag about labor rights about a year ago, we were in a tough position, Madam Speaker. Today, I want to assert that we find ourselves in an even worse position. According to the latest survey, unemployment rose to 8 percent, seasonally adjusted, and it is expected to continue to increase this year. Over 400,000 people are openly unemployed or enrolled in labor market policy programs. It is obviously far too many, and more people are expected to become unemployed until 2025. It is serious. It concerns households that will face difficulties and people who will have to leave jobs as carpenters, fall protection specialists, and construction workers.

More people shall work. More young boys and girls shall see their parents go to work.

During the previous parliamentary term, within the framework of the January Agreement, the Center Party 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, and it fits better in today's society. It meant great improvements for both people and companies and laid a better foundation for job creation to be able to grow.

We live in a changing world where development often happens very quickly. Society does not look the same today as it did 50, 20, or just 5 years ago, before the corona pandemic. This also applies to the labor market with digitalization and automation and workers' expectations and also demands on their employers. Just like our society at large, the Swedish labor market is in constant change. It is necessary that laws, rules, and the labor market's rules of the game change accordingly.

The corona pandemic was terrible in many ways. It forced us to work in ways other than we have historically done. 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. We now stand better equipped to meet the challenges of society and the labor market ahead.

But we still have regulations in the labor market today that were written in another time decades ago, a time when the largest companies accounted for the jobs. That has changed. It is no longer so.

Now it is small and growing companies that are increasingly responsible for job creation. A good deal of laws and regulations are simply not adapted for today's labor market and business sector, and they risk hindering the emergence of tomorrow's jobs and, in the long run, threatening Sweden's international competitiveness.

In many places, furthermore, the small and growing companies are crucial for the business sector's recovery and the local labor market. One area that hinders job creation is the design of the rules on industrial actions. When the time is right, we must dare to open up for a discussion on exactly this. Society and the labor market are changing, and the regulatory frameworks must also do so. Centerpartiet sees a need to conduct a review of the conflict law to create a better balance between the labor market's parties, the economy, and society at large.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough that the Center Party is proud of the Swedish model, including how the majority of negotiations over time have mainly taken place without partisan influence in order to contribute to a secure labor market for both employees and employers. We truly sign off on that!

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few 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 legal and binding initiatives from the Commission in the socio-political and labor market policy areas.

Several of the proposals are now adopted and constitute binding legislation for the member states. As even more concrete proposals for the implementation of the social pillar have been presented, it has become clear that the Swedish labor market model is truly threatened and will not remain in its current form if the proposals are implemented.

For the Centre Party, it has always been clear that decisions on the labor market and social safety nets need to be made based on how they look and function in each respective member state. The decisions should be as close to the people as possible. Moving labor market policy to the EU level risks lowering the requirements and reducing protection rather than raising them.

We do not need more legislation at the EU level in labor market issues; instead, we need to listen to experiences of how it works in other countries, share our knowledge, and continue to work from a Swedish perspective. We need to safeguard the Swedish labor market model and use the right tools in the right contexts. Fundamentally, there is a broad consensus in the Riksdag on this, and we have heard that today. But unfortunately, I feel that the government has, on a number of occasions previously, put forward very unclear positions on EU issues in the labor market area.

Let me mention some examples. The government hesitated before finally signing the lawsuit together with Denmark regarding minimum wages. It required heavy pressure from the opposition.

Another example is the vacillation regarding the platform directive. On several occasions, it has appeared to be more important to get certain issues settled and reach an agreement quickly than to actually safeguard the Swedish model and our Swedish labor market, which we have been proud of so many times. This makes me concerned. The Center Party therefore considers that the government should take measures to counteract all EU legislation that threatens the Swedish labor market model.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the debate in the Committee on Employment.

I had not initially intended to request the floor, but after the last part of the member's speech, I became somewhat confounded. This concerns primarily the Centre Party's view on the EU and the impact on the Swedish model.

C has submitted a motion in the report where they want to return to the old regulatory framework regarding secondment before lex Laval was introduced. It was a regulatory framework that was directly harmful to the Swedish model, especially within the construction industry, which forced sharp measures.

Madam Speaker! In the same report, a motion has been submitted expressing a desire to counter all EU legislation that threatens the Swedish labor market model, which the introduction of lex Laval clearly entails.

What is the Center Party's view on lex Laval today?

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

Emelie Nyman (C)

Madam Speaker! Of all those who could have requested a reply to me, the Sweden Democrats were probably the last I expected, especially in these matters. Here, I still thought that the Sweden Democrats were in agreement with the Centre Party that one wants to keep these types of issues as close to the people as possible and not raise them at the EU level. That is precisely why we move for approval of the reservation where we emphasize extra that Sweden as a country should take a stand so that labor law issues remain within each member state. That the Sweden Democrats do not agree more than you do that Sweden as a country should take a stand leaves me confounded. I pose the question: Why do you not agree with our reservation regarding making a clearer stance against the EU?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to inform the members that the Sweden Democrats are probably the party that most strongly advocates the line that Swedish labor market policy is a national issue.

My question concerned the Laval Act. Does C want to reintroduce the Laval Act, which is directly harmful to the Swedish model? They simply want to go back and give the EU more power over Swedish labor market policy. At the same time, there is a reservation that says the opposite.

Where does Centerpartiet stand today regarding lex Laval?

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

Emelie Nyman (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for this reply.

I do not quite agree with what the Sweden Democrats are presenting here. If you take the position that you claim, and which is also seen in the media, I myself am confounded as to why you are not in the government. The Sweden Democrats are, after all, a cooperation party in the Swedish Riksdag. Why do you not push harder and ensure that you mark against the social pillar via the forums that you have access to now?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Society shall help those who fall but never ever prevent anyone from flying. There must be a balance between the individual's responsibility and society's obligations, the companies' opportunities to create profit and thereby growth and welfare versus the employee's rights and demands.

Our experiences and ideologies intersect in slightly different places depending on which perspective we have. Some of our parties have the support of that group of citizens who already have a job, those who are already members of a trade union and have had the opportunity to build up an unemployment insurance fund first on the agenda.

When interest organizations protect their members, which is of course completely reasonable, it becomes increasingly difficult for the large group that stands outside and eagerly knocks on the staff entrance for their first job and their first employment. It could be Erik with a disability, Eva who has a history of substance abuse and mental illness, or Hind who came to Sweden and did not learn proper Swedish before she started a family and had a few years at home with the children.

Parallel to the demands to learn Swedish, we must have an SFI worth the name, that is, provide opportunities for internships and combined education where one can learn both Swedish and a profession simultaneously. This requires that employers, both private and public, have the financial and personnel resources to receive, teach, and develop.

Madam Speaker! There are also different perspectives regarding whether private companies are an asset or a threat to individuals who need to enter the labor market. For me and the Liberals, the answer is simple. The Committee on Employment does not create a single real job. We politicians do not create 14 new plumber positions in Tierp or 8 new waitress jobs in Åstorp. That requires driven entrepreneurs and hardworking business owners, someone who sees potential in a dilapidated local premises or can see a hotel where we others only see a patch of grass.

Long-term unemployment has taken hold, and every week we also see that the number of people facing layoffs or dismissals is increasing. It is serious; we are in a recession. But the truth is that despite having many years of boom behind us, we have not succeeded in equipping those who are far from the labor market.

Everyone who can work shall work. But then it must pay off better to move from benefits to work, and getting an education must leave more in the wallet.

Madam Speaker! Labor law needs to become more flexible so that more people can get their first job. During the last parliamentary term, positive shifts were made in Swedish labor law, which is good. Sweden needs a modern labor law. But there are still regulatory frameworks that are adapted to a time when the norm was that a person worked at the same workplace for their entire professional life. That is no longer how working life looks.

The labor market needs to have a balance between security and flexibility, and for us liberals, it means that one should feel secure at work but also secure in finding a new job if necessary. The announced changes in the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) are a step in the right direction. It is about security through substantial compensation at the start, but also expectation and incentives to quickly find a new job through transition.

If more people are to be given the freedom to have their own salary, there must also be jobs for those who lack education, experience, and contacts. If more people are to be able to get their first job, the right to employ on a trial basis must also be strengthened – contrary to what some others in here have argued in their motions. That is because companies will then dare and be able to give more people the chance to show what they are capable of.

In this chamber, there has been much talk about the establishment jobs not arriving quickly enough. The government has been accused of sluggishness and reluctance. Now the reform has been launched, but I have not yet heard of the labor market parties delivering a single job. What luck then that the government sticks to the nystartsjobb as a complement.

Workplaces should not build walls. It is easy to demand that the priority rules should become stricter, that it should be harder to change the employment level, and that everyone should be able to work full-time. But those who are to develop jobs and create employment opportunities must also feel secure. When turnover goes down, the market fails, and the entrepreneurs themselves can no longer take out wages, it is reasonable that they can change the employment level for the employees. That is not to say that the so-called downsizing we see in some large companies is reasonable. On the contrary, this is both bad personnel policy and, in the long run, also bad corporate economics. The companies should know that.

In a motion, it is proposed that one should be allowed to work longer. From a liberal perspective, it is not only reasonable but also necessary. That the parties in the labor market provide annual opportunities to work longer than today is positive, and we now see that more and more people who have reached mature age continue to work based on their own opportunities and circumstances.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Oliver Rosengren (M) agreed.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Mårtensen for a speech that did not only address labor law but labor market policy in general.

I perceived criticism regarding the establishment jobs. What changes to labor law does the member foresee in light of what she stated?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! No, I see no direct changes in labor law to enable the establishment jobs to be realized without the prerequisites for them being present. But I am satisfied that the phasing out of the nystartsjobben, which was discussed earlier, has not become a reality, because I see difficulties in realizing as many establishment jobs as are required to meet current needs. In that case, the nystartsjobben are a good complement.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not perceive that the nystartsjobb were mentioned in the statement. It surprises me that a reasoning is being made regarding the establishment jobs but without proposals for legislative changes. Should I perceive it more as a general comment?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! No, I actually set the establishment jobs against the new start jobs and meant that it is good that the new start jobs remain. As it looks now, I do not think we will manage to produce enough establishment jobs, and I do not trust that this will resolve itself when the situation on the labor market becomes tougher and tougher. I do not think that the labor market parties will be able to deliver in the way we want, and then I hope that our government is mature and brave enough to see what kind of changes are required.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 7, regarding the right of older people to remain in their employment at higher ages, and reservation 3, regarding the right to full-time and the possibility of part-time.

Madam Speaker! In the current report, a number of central issues within labor law are addressed, but I choose to direct my attention towards the elderly's right to continued employment and the right to full-time work and the possibility of part-time work.

Miljöpartiet wants to re-evaluate the competencies and experiences of older persons. In the S-MP government, we were involved in raising the age limit for the right to student grants from 56 years to 60 years. It was an important first step. Our vision is to give older workers the opportunity to continue working as long as they wish and are capable. It is about recognizing and valuing the rich experience and competence that older citizens have to offer while simultaneously ensuring their well-being and health.

We want to move forward and also ensure that those who want to and have the possibility can remain in their employment longer. In the current situation, the Employment Protection Act gives everyone who wants the right to remain in their employment until the age of 69. Miljöpartiet argues that the right to remain in one's employment needs to exist even higher up in the years.

Work is an important health factor for many, and I do not think that we as a society can refuse people who want to continue to contribute through work. In a broader perspective, it can also contribute to reducing ageism in society. I therefore believe that the government should return to the Riksdag with proposals to raise the limit for the right to remain in employment.

Madam Speaker! It is necessary to address the issues related to the working environment in our society, especially within the welfare sector. In the female-dominated industries, particularly healthcare and elderly care, women are wearing themselves out, and others work part-time involuntarily. According to a report from Kommunalarbetareförbundet, seven out of ten of their members who work in elderly care and childcare are concerned that their pension will not be sufficient or that they will not be able to manage working until retirement age. Women top the sickness absence rates, especially when it comes to stress-related sick leaves. This applies in particular to healthcare as well as care and elderly care, where pressured work situations force many to reduce their hours to cope or to leave their jobs entirely. This is happening at the same time as the needs within the welfare sector are great. But the Tidö government is not providing sufficient funds to meet the crisis in welfare, so despite the need for more staff, municipalities and regions are limited by scarce resources.

To maintain a good welfare, the working conditions for those who work within the welfare professions must be improved. This means investing in a better work environment and better working conditions. Miljöpartiet advocates for the right to full-time and the possibility of part-time. But it is also important to ensure that those who work full-time have the energy and resources to manage it. Therefore, investments in the work environment are crucial for the future of welfare. There are quite a few initiatives underway to provide a clearer right to full-time, which we welcome. But it is also important to offer greater flexibility for the employees by giving those who want to reduce their hours that possibility. Individual needs can differ, and they can look different during different parts of life. But the possibility must exist. Public employers need to lead by clearly offering such flexibility.

Madam Speaker! In this context, I would also like to take the opportunity to regret that the government has chosen to remove the so-called recovery bonus that the Green Party introduced in 2021. Funds have been available to be applied for by working groups within health and social care and elderly care to test their own ideas for an improved work environment. It could also have been about working time models. Many successful and interesting projects have been tested across the country.

I truly regret that the government is withdrawing this development opportunity. It would have been much better to let it continue and evaluate and improve the model rather than scrapping it prematurely. Our ambition is that it should be reintroduced and strengthened. This type of investment is necessary to improve the working environment.

We often talk about the right to full-time work, but we must also talk more about the capacity for full-time work. A better working environment is the key to this.

Labor law

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 February.)

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