Labor law and working hours

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! Honored colleagues! Today we shall debate AU7 Labour Law and working hours.

In Sweden, we have a unique model where Swedish labor law is negotiated largely by the parties themselves who reach agreements. It enables predictability for both the employees, that is, the wage earners, and the employers, especially since we find ourselves in a recession. Thank goodness, inflation seems to have eased now when it comes to food prices but also generally. It affects us all, especially Swedish households and our wage earners.

With a robust labor law, we build in a resilience in a recession. It means that when there is a notice of termination or when people must be laid off, many Swedish wage earners know that there is a safety net, that there is an order. One does not leave the job on the spot. There is an order where consideration is taken of how long one has worked at the workplace, competence, etcetera. It is not like in many other countries in Europe.

It means that there is a predictability even for the employers. It is not that employers like to cut back, but it can be necessary for various reasons. One might have to do a restructuring. The businesses might be doing poorly.

One also knows what is good about the Swedish employers. There is often a discussion that many employers in Sweden are not good people. Of course, there are some troublemakers. But these employers and entrepreneurs exist and live in our everyday lives. And if it goes well for Swedish companies, more Swedish wage earners get a job to go to and the opportunity to build a salary career. We also get more resources for our common welfare, for the police, and for the defense – given the geopolitical change.

By us politicians keeping an arm's length distance, it enables the employers' associations and the employees' associations to sit down and negotiate on what both parties consider important and to reach an agreement. That is why we hardly have any strike hours in Sweden. Stockholm or other parts of Sweden are not paralyzed, as it can be in Brussels. If one goes to Brussels, one can see riot fences outside the parliament from time to time. Thank goodness I have not seen a single riot fence outside our parliament yet.

Mr. Speaker! I want to highlight what is unique in Sweden. Even if the bourgeois side is perhaps not always in agreement with the opposition when it comes to the view on the Swedish labor market, we are nevertheless in agreement in many respects compared to our European colleagues. But I want to raise a warning finger that from Brussels, there are attempts to regulate the Swedish model. Therefore, it is incredibly important that employers' associations and employees' associations find a common standpoint and that we from politics ward off Brussels and let the Swedish model continue to serve just as it has done historically.

Mr. Speaker! I will once again return to the Swedish model. I sound like a Social Democrat. But it is not only Social Democrats who safeguard Swedish labor law. We Moderates do as well. If we look historically, Social Democracy has its roots in the workers' movement and we have ours in the employees' movement.

When we meet representatives from both sides, we can discuss, for example, pension contributions. Approximately nine out of ten Swedish employees have collective agreements, and many of my Social Democratic colleagues think that there should be collective agreements at every workplace. I respect that. But I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with collective agreements, but that it should be up to each company. And nine out of ten are covered by collective agreements.

I will highlight the positive, which we usually do not talk about in politics. If there is a recession and if the company has a collective agreement, every employee knows that if the company were to go bankrupt or fail to pay the premiums, the employee is still, in addition to the guarantee wage from the state, guaranteed their pension contribution through the collective agreement. And in the event of a notice, if one is fired or if one is going on parental leave, one knows that the insurance is paid. And if one – God forbid – suffers a work-related injury, the security insurance for work-related injuries kicks in.

There are many things that we do not mention in this chamber. I believe the reason why it is better than many people think is that we let the parties reach an agreement. We do not let the political conflict enter the labor law.

Thus, it is gratifying that the Social Democrats did not make a decision at their congress that legislation should be enacted regarding a reduction in working hours. Of course, one will press one's friends in the various trade unions. But that must happen through negotiations.

I am of the opinion that if one in any particular collective agreement wants to agree to reduce working hours, it should be up to that collective, but I do not believe that politics should interfere. We need more people working. We need more hours worked. If both sides in any particular industry can ensure that it benefits both the employers and the employees, it is up to that collective. But we should not have a statutory reduction of working hours.

We must keep in mind that we have very generous rules in Sweden when it comes to parental leave and vacation. We must not compromise on that. But we must also let the parties negotiate and do so at their own pace. History has shown that it has served Sweden very well.

Mr. Speaker! Against that background, I would like to move for the rejection of all the motions.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We in the Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of time at the future vote, I move for approval of only reservation 11.

Labor law regulates some of the very most fundamental aspects of people's lives. It is what many of us spend several hours a day on and which sometimes also takes up a somewhat too large part of our free time: work. Working time naturally falls into place for discussion when we talk about work taking up large parts of people's time – including free time, unfortunately.

Working life is characterized by a power relationship between the employer and the employee. It is an unequal relationship. The employers always have an advantage in that power relationship. For this reason, the legislator has historically intervened so that the power relationship should be regulated, so that the power relationship should become something more equal.

The Employment Protection Act, the Co-determination Act, the Working Hours Act, the Annual Leave Act, yes, many different types of legislation have been developed for that very reason: to level the unequal balance of power that exists in working life.

Now it is not the result of some kind of divine power, but the result of a 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.

It is, of course, possible to use labor law in exactly the opposite way. It can be used instead to strengthen the employer's power at the expense of the employees'. Over the last hundred years, this view has fortunately not been dominant. Or, fortunately: It is not by chance, but it is a concrete result of a firm political conviction.

Mr. Speaker! Nothing is, however, self-evident. Nothing can be taken for granted. We see a worrying trend on the Swedish labor market. We see how workers' power is constantly decreasing in relation to employers' power. We see it in the trends with ever-increasing surveillance in the workplace, and more and more workers are being monitored at work. This is something that is made possible, not least by the ever-wider use of algorithms and artificial intelligence.

This is obviously not a coincidence. In times of high unemployment, the opportunities for employers to strengthen their power increase. Who is going to protest when the first job is at stake or when one's entire livelihood can disappear in an instant? Add to that the fact that insecure forms of employment are also becoming increasingly common. It is a worrying trend, and the legislator as well as the parties need to be observant of the development.

Mr. Speaker! When speaking about the parties, unions and employers are fundamental to Swedish labor law, now as then. It is the so-called Swedish model. The model implies that large parts of the labor market's conditions and rules are handled by the parties. The model is built on a large and extensive shared responsibility between the parties.

It is a responsibility that has functioned well so far. Few other countries can boast of Sweden's growth, good working conditions, and low number of conflict days over time. It is something we should be proud of and continue to work for. Nor is this something that has arisen through a divine power descended from heaven, but 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 obviously further disrupts the balance of power in the Swedish labor market, or workers are exploited.

We see frightening examples of modern-day slavery, workers forced to sleep in containers at workplaces and workers forced to work far too much for far too low a wage. It is completely unacceptable that we have such phenomena in the Swedish labor market. The pursuit of profit must never take precedence over ordinary people's lives and health.

An initiative from previous Social Democratic governments to spread this mindset is Global Deal. The Social Democrats deplore that this right-wing government's ambitions regarding Global Deal and fair trade appear to be low. The fruits of globalization need to be distributed equally. The work with fair free trade needs to be strengthened and continue with unflagging force. Sweden has shown that it is possible.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats would also have liked to see the government do more regarding contractor liability. There is a completed investigation stating that hired personnel need to be covered by the legislation regarding contractor liability. We Social Democrats would have welcomed the committee clearly taking a stand on this, and we regret that this has not occurred.

Mr. Speaker! A little more than a year ago, when we had a similar debate to the one we have today, the question of shortening working hours was hardly on the table. It might have been discussed theoretically at some seminar somewhere in the country. Now the question is at the center of the Swedish political discussion, not least because the Swedish labor movement has raised the issue.

It is not strange. When we see how the production surplus accrues to the companies and their owners in an ever-increasing extent and the working hours remain at the same levels as they have for the last 50 years, then it is at least reasonable that the discussion about working hours is raised. This also applies when Swedes work the most in the Nordic region.

Mr. Speaker! For the Social Democrats, it remains important that the parties take responsibility for the Swedish model. It is about the fact that labor law conditions can be resolved between the parties, in dialogue and in negotiations. We Social Democrats therefore see it as self-evident that it is the parties who should primarily resolve the issue of reduced working hours.

We welcome that there is now a serious discussion regarding working hours and their distribution. The Social Democrats look forward to this discussion continuing to be conducted in society and monitor the parties' work on the issue with great interest.

To once again highlight the Swedish model, which will surely be done several times in today's debate, the Social Democrats stand firm in their conviction regarding the excellence of the Swedish model. More need to be integrated 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, for example, in that the 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 which 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 maintain the world's most successful labor market model.

Connected to this, we Social Democrats view the development with concern where so-called platform companies reject employer responsibility. We therefore propose that an investigation be appointed to map the platform economy and submit proposals for measures regarding the problems within the platform economy. We regret that the right-wing parties reject this.

Another unwanted phenomenon that has emerged in the Swedish labor market in recent years is so-called "downsizing" (hyvlingen). People who previously worked full-time may see their employment converted to part-time, or barely that.

It is an unreasonable arrangement in the long run that hits Swedish wage earners hard, for example within the retail trade. It is not uncommon that it is young people who suffer from it and who later cannot obtain loan commitments or can plan their lives. 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.

The goal of and with the policy must be to reduce power imbalances and inequality in society. It is, in any case, a clear task for Swedish social democracy. With that in mind, we social democrats will always stand up for wage earners' right to organize, to negotiate for better working conditions, and to use industrial actions within the framework of the law to stand up for their rights.

In the time we live in, when large corporate owners expand their power, and even buy presidential power on the other side of the Atlantic, the legislative power in Sweden needs to be clear. In the power conflict between employers and employees, the legislator needs to be ready to protect and strengthen the employees' power. This shall happen at the same time as the Swedish model, this successful recipe for prosperity, is protected.

Everyone bears responsibility for the Swedish model: the legislator, the employees, and not least the employers. If any of these parties do not take responsibility for the Swedish model, it fails. Social Democracy will continue to stand up for the Swedish model and fight for it, while the interests of the employees are in focus. That is our promise.

(Applause)

In this speech, Björn Petersson (S) agreed.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Adrian Magnusson, for a fantastic speech!

The Speaker makes me very nostalgic. He sounds exactly like the Social Democrats did when I grew up in the 70s. It is truly wonderful to hear about the power of the workers and how important it is that politics listens to the workers.

Adrian Magnusson was very clear that there is always an unequal power relationship between those who own and buy the work and those who sell it. That is why it is so important that politics intervenes so that we get all the laws: the holiday act, the representative act, the work environment act and so on. There must be a security and a safety.

But that does not apply to all areas. When it comes to the reduction of working hours, it is the working hours that we now have legislated, and it has always been that way. It must be so for it to be fair. It shouldn't be that only the strong trade unions can get through a good working time while those who have weaker power relations cannot.

When Adrian Magnusson ducks and says that it is precisely when it comes to working hours that the parties should take their responsibility and not when it comes to, for example, subcontracting and fixed-term employment – how does he reason then?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I mean that the parties also take responsibility in other issues than working hours. If I expressed myself carelessly, let me correct that: The parties take responsibility regarding a number of other issues beyond working hours, not least when it comes to the "hyvlingen" (the "shaving"). There, responsibility has been taken.

What I wanted to convey is that the task of taking responsibility is often imposed on trade unions in this country. And that order is unreasonable. Employers and employer organizations must also take responsibility for the Swedish model. I am completely convinced that Ciczie Weidby agrees with me on this, so we do not need to have a long discussion about it. There may be other debaters who will come later in the debate today who have a different opinion on the matter, but I do not intend to comment on that in advance.

I take this opportunity to thank Ciczie Weidby for appreciating my speech. It is – almost – always pleasant to hear when members from other parties appreciate what one says.

Let us return to the issue of working hours. It is as the member says: In almost all instances, it is legislation that has caused working hours to be shortened – not all, but almost. There is, in any case, one exception in history.

I intend to read out our congress decision, because I believe there may be some confusion regarding the Social Democrats' position on the issue. I may have to read it out several more times today, but I will start now. This is what it says in the guidelines that were adopted at the congress – I was there myself, so I can confirm it: "We view the parties' work in finding solutions for a sustainable working life positively and also see the need for a reduction in working hours. In Sweden, we work a lot and many struggle to make work and everyday life fit together and to endure a full professional life. Working hours need to be shortened. The question of a reduction in working hours should primarily be resolved by the parties in the labor market and may require regulations and measures in the near future."

It means, therefore, that our view is that the parties should resolve the issue, but we see that the decision may require regulations and interventions in the near term. We do, however, believe in the parties' ability, and we believe in the Swedish model. Therefore, we think it is reasonable that the parties first try to resolve the issue.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Adrian Magnusson!

I have read the decision earlier. It is always so fantastic with Social Democratic decisions. They ensure that two sides can always feel satisfied, because one can always interpret the decisions exactly as one wants. It shows a finesse and a craftsmanship that many of us are very envious of.

The parties shall take their responsibility – absolutely. But in this case, the employers are not in the least interested in reducing working hours, except for themselves. The officials at Svenskt Näringsliv obviously have shorter working hours; that is understandable. Everyone wants to be able to pick up from preschool earlier and have better leisure time with less stress and so on. But the poor workers are apparently not supposed to have it that way.

I do not quite know how I should interpret Adrian Magnusson and the Socialdemokraterna regarding what happens if the parties do not, in the first instance in any kind of near future, reach an agreement. Both Kommunals and Handels members belong to unions that are not as strong and have the same starting position as several other unions have. Metall is such a trade union, which has a long tradition and has good agreements. But not everyone has that starting point.

Should I interpret Adrian Magnusson and the Socialdemokraterna as saying that we should proceed and legislate on a general reduced working time that applies to everyone if the parties do not, in the first instance, agree on shorter working hours within some kind of near future?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start where I finished. The Social Democrats believe in the Swedish model, and we believe that the parties will be able to resolve the issue.

As the member himself just pointed out, Svenskt Näringsliv appears to be a supporter of reduced working hours judging by how they themselves act in their own workplace. There is therefore, hopefully, a good basis and a good understanding of how good it can be with reduced working hours even for ordinary "knegare" (workers), as the member expressed it.

I was a bit curious about how Vänsterpartiet phrases the issue. I went in and looked at the party's website today, because I thought it might be interesting to see what they write. It says as follows: ”Vänsterpartiet wants to appoint an inquiry with the mandate to highlight the possibilities for a general reduction of working hours. The inquiry's mandate shall present proposals on how a reduction of working hours with maintained wages can be introduced, and at the same time give the parties the mandate to design the reduction of working hours so that consideration is taken of the different conditions prevailing within different industries.”

If one thought that our writing was an exercise in ambiguity, it seems that Vänsterpartiet is starting to take impressions from social democratic congress guidelines, because this was also an exercise in ambiguity. One can imagine legislation, but one thinks that the parties should solve it – well!

We believe in the parties' ability. But as we write, regulations and interventions may be required in the near term. From what I read of the Left Party's writings, I do not think we are that far apart actually. I am not quite sure, but I interpret it that way anyway.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I also listened carefully to the member's speech. It was a good speech, but I actually could not hear the family being mentioned even once.

For me as a Christian Democrat, the family is society's most important cornerstone. Children and families are affected by all the political decisions we make. This also applies to labor law and working hours.

At the Social Democrats' congress, there was talk about shortening working hours. I am glad that they dared to leave the goal of legislating a 35-hour work week, even though they now say that the parties should reach an agreement on it.

My question to the member concerns the family perspective. Preschool is our children's workplace. The Social Democrats have made parents believe that if children do not start in preschool as soon as they have turned one year old, they will fall behind in development – this despite the fact that research shows that up to three years of age, attachment is the most important thing and that parents are the only adults a child needs.

My question to Member of Parliament Adrian Magnusson is therefore: Can the Social Democrats consider legislating that children may be in preschool for a maximum of 35 hours a week?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

I must say that I am fascinated by the Swedish bourgeoisie and other parties' great interest in the Social Democratic Workers' Party's 42nd congress. I have noted how bourgeois members of parliament, for the most part, seem to have spent the plenary week locked in their chambers to follow the social democratic congress from beginning to end. I was a delegate, but I actually believe that bourgeois members of parliament followed the congress more than I did. I find that quite impressive.

The Speaker is absolutely right that there is a fundamental ideological difference between Christian Democracy and Social Democracy. We do not see the family as the smallest constituent unit. We see individualism in a positive sense; people should be able to live the lives of their dreams regardless of where they come from. Structures that can be oppressive should not hold them back. There can be many different examples of such oppression. We do not believe that one should be dependent on the family. Therefore, Social Democracy has been driving the building of the welfare state through part of the legislation that I accounted for in my speech.

Madam Speaker! This is a labor law debate and a question of working hours. Given the strong support that nevertheless exists among the population for a reduction in working hours, I understand that the Christian Democrats would prefer to talk about something else.

I can only note that the Christian Democrats themselves have expressed that they have no problem with reviewing working hours if the parties in the labor market do so. This has been expressed in opinion pieces in Aftonbladet.

Regarding preschool, we are hopefully in agreement that it is extremely important for children's development. I really hope that there is no conflict there and that we should not instead be discussing whether preschool is actually so important for children's development.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I note that the member does not want to answer my question but wants to assert that it has no place in this debate. But if we were to agree to a reduction in working hours, the consequence would be that children should be at preschool for less time.

Sweden may have the world's best preschool. We may have the world's best educators. Our children have it good at preschool. But it is never discussed how many hours a child spends at preschool.

Therefore, I repeat the question. In short: Are the Social Democrats prepared to legislate that children may be at preschool for a maximum of 35 hours a week?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish civil society is obviously in some kind of crisis. So be it. I might have done the same if I had read the SCB measurement this morning. Now, instead of talking about what one does oneself and what one has failed at during the nearly three years one has held government power, one wants to enter some kind of election campaign and go into opposition against potential Social Democratic proposals.

Now it is the Christian Democrats and the bourgeois parties that hold the government power. Therefore, I think it is primarily there that accountability should be demanded. That is how a parliament usually works: it is the opposition that scrutinizes the government power, not the government power that scrutinizes the opposition. I do, however, understand that one might want a different order there.

I just want to correct the member: Our view is that the parties should resolve this. The member expressed it as that we should see to it that there is a reduction in working hours. Our view is, which I hope and from previous statements have understood it as that the member also means, that it is the parties in the labor market who primarily should resolve a reduction in working hours.

If the Social Democrats receive the confidence of the voters, which I truly hope for for the sake of this country's prosperity and development, to lead the country after the next election, the members will be able to take part in the proposals that exist to improve integration in the country. It is a necessary task. The members will also be able to take part in our proposals to ensure that all children – regardless of where they come from and regardless of background – can live the lives of their dreams.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I also, of course, want to speak about the fantastic congress, even though I did not witness it very much – I will willingly admit that.

The Christian Democrats lacked the family perspective. I, of course, lack the entrepreneur perspective. The prerequisite for being able to have a good working environment is actually having a job to go to. Four out of five jobs are created in small and growing companies. It seems social democracy has completely forgotten that.

When I look at the Social Democrats' latest move in the labor market area, I become genuinely worried. It is a reduction in working hours with maintained wages. It is abolished carens deductions. These are proposals that may sound good – but who bears the cost? Who is it that is affected? Yes, it is the country's employers.

This is extremely concerning. Unemployment in the country is heading in the wrong direction. We see in both large and small towns how company after company goes bankrupt. It is tough to be an entrepreneur in Sweden.

The government is not doing enough. However, I am afraid of what the Social Democrats' proposals in this area would mean. What would a 35-hour work week mean for the entrepreneur? What would abolished parental leave deductions mean for the entrepreneur?

As usual, the Social Democrats' solution is that it is the companies that should bear the cost and the companies that should deal with the problems.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Member Cato also followed large parts of the Social Democrats' fantastic congress, as he himself expressed it. I think it is pleasing that it has received so much space among so many people in this chamber, even among the old Farmers' League. It pleases me.

A picture is now being spread that we have in some way, in our guidelines, made a decision regarding a 35-hour work week. I read out the draft guidelines earlier, and nothing such exists. Nevertheless, the picture is now being set by certain bourgeois debaters that the Social Democrats will come forward with a proposal for a 35-hour work week. I just wanted to clear that up so that we do not end up there.

Jonny Cato nevertheless raises a quite important aspect, namely the so-called bourgeois government's total failure when it comes to labor market policy. I truly share Jonny Cato's and the Center Party's concern regarding bankruptcies and the skyrocketing unemployment. I am genuinely concerned, so it is good that Jonny Cato raises this.

This debate shows quite clearly which interests our parties represent. We represent the interests of the employees, and that is what the Social Democrats have done for nearly 150 years. The Centre Party stands here and laments reforms that could make life better for, as Member Weidby expressed it, ordinary workers and instead worries about the interests of the companies.

It becomes clear that there are conflicting interests in Swedish politics. Sometimes it is claimed that this is not the case, that we all actually think the same thing and that we are just adjusting the margins a bit. In this exchange of remarks, it becomes clear that is not the case.

The reforms that we decided on at the fantastic congress are reforms that we are convinced will make life better for ordinary people in their everyday lives.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The most important thing for an ordinary worker is to have a job to go to and to be able to work. More young boys and girls need to see their parents go to work in the morning. It is neither the Social Democrats nor the Centre Party that create those job opportunities. It is the country's entrepreneurs who do. Politics cannot create jobs, but politics can create obstacles for the companies to be able to grow and thrive. I am genuinely concerned about the development we see across the country for the country's entrepreneurs.

Centerpartiet has had a campaign where, for a number of months, we have traveled around and talked with and listened to the country's entrepreneurs. What they say is primarily three things: there is too much red tape, it is difficult to find competence, and costs are too high. With the Social Democrats' proposal, it will not become less complicated or cheaper to be an entrepreneur in this country. On the contrary, it will become more complicated and more expensive. Furthermore, one needs to hire more people, in the large competence shortage that already exists, if one is to move to a 35-hour work week.

No, it is true that the congress decision is not exactly a 35-hour work week. But one can also note that the chairman of LO, who is very proactive in the proposals regarding garden leave, reduction of working hours and so on, was elected to the executive committee this weekend. It is quite funny: We are often accused of standing on the employer's side and of having the employer's interests in mind. But it is actually only one party in this chamber that is connected to one of the parties in the labor market, and that is the Social Democrats. In that case, there is no balance on the Swedish labor market.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I really do not share the member's view that there is only one party in this chamber that is linked to the labor market parties. I want to remind the member of what the leader of the Center Party did before she became the leader of the Center Party, but we do not need to delve into that matter. There are also other parties in the chamber that have very strong ties to the other side in the conflict between labor and capital.

Now the Centre Party member of parliament stood and complained about shortened working hours. The Centre Party has previously expressed itself as follows: ”We continue to think that it should be up to the labor market parties or individual companies to decide whether it is possible and appropriate with shortened working hours depending on the conditions within the respective industry.”

One can interpret the motions as that the Center Party does not want any reduced working hours, no matter the cost, and that one does not believe the parties can solve it. In that case, it is a shift from the position one previously held. One can then ask what the Center Party actually thinks and intends regarding the Swedish model. I become somewhat concerned about that, I must say.

Since then, it is almost a bit comical how the Centre Party member, when we have a government consisting of bourgeois parties, stands up here and complains about the labor market policy. The Centre Party member should not take that debate with me, but he should take it with the bourgeois parties that sit in Sweden's government.

It is obvious that it is the bourgeois labor market policy that has led to almost 10 percent unemployment. In the county that both I and the member come from, there is mass unemployment. I think it is noteworthy that the Social Democrats are being held accountable for the bourgeois labor market policy. I actually think the member must take it up with bourgeois politicians and not with someone who represents the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and for the rejection of all motions.

I also want to start by disappointing the Social Democrats and Adrian Magnusson: I have not seen a minute of your congress, but what I referred to came from an article in Dagens Arena, where, among others, your former party secretary Lars Stjernkvist was quoted.

Madam Speaker! Having a job to go to is not just a matter of economics, it is about dignity, community, and responsibility.

For us Christian Democrats, working life is an important part of a good society. Labor law and working hours play a crucial role in creating a balance between the employers' needs and the employees' security. We want a working life that is secure but also flexible, where employers dare to hire, where workers dare to change jobs, where the rules are clear but not suffocating, and where both companies and people can grow.

A question that has been important for us is to modernize labor law so that it works for today's labor market. The old rules were written for another time and another society. Back then, it was more common to work your whole life at the same workplace, but today we see completely different patterns: small businesses are emerging, and there is gig work, remote work, and project employment.

Labor law simply must keep up. That is why the new changes in the Employment Protection Act, LAS, which entered into force on 1 October 2022, are important. These are reforms that strengthen the balance and make it easier for employers to hire, but which at the same time increase the security for the employee.

The changes have, among other things, entailed clearer rules regarding termination, so that small companies do not have to hesitate before hiring, and also more opportunities for skills development and transition support, also for those who have not been permanently employed for a long period. Many of the measures have made it easier for employees to enter the labor market and obtain secure employment.

For employers, the changes have entailed certain improvements that have lowered the threshold and reduced the risks of hiring, and they have provided greater opportunities than before to bypass LAS seniority rules in the event of a labor shortage and made it easier to dismiss staff who misconduct themselves. The purpose of the new LAS was simply to adapt the labor market to society, with improved flexibility and better security for employees.

I want to thank the Center Party for saying no to abolishing the care deduction.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats know that work life does not exist in a vacuum. It is connected to family life. When a parent goes to work, the children see something important: responsibility, structure, and pride. Work does not only put bread on the table, it also provides role models. Therefore, it is crucial that we create a society where both women and men are given the opportunity to combine work with family life.

A sustainable working life is also a family-friendly working life, and many times, the working life is a family in itself. I am thinking particularly of the thousands of family businesses that carry Sweden. These are companies that have been passed down as an inheritance, sometimes over several generations. In these companies, there is often a deeper understanding of how work affects life as a whole.

One such true story is how the founder of the company Babybjörn even called home to an employee to find out how the employee's husband was doing, after hearing that he was ill. It is family businesses that have a care for the employees that goes beyond what collective agreements and other things can provide. There is a humanity, a closeness, and a will to find solutions that work, not just for the company but for the people who work there.

Madam Speaker! We also see how important our small businesses are, not only for growth but for creating jobs across the entire country. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for 65–70 percent of the jobs in the private sector. Four out of five jobs are created by small and medium-sized enterprises. That is where the jobs of the future emerge, but that requires that we continue to facilitate for those who dare to invest, who dare to hire, and who dare to run businesses.

Madam Speaker! The report deals with a motion proposing that we should introduce a four-day work week. But don't we already have that in principle? We can start with a person who works full-time in industry and who works during the day, Monday to Friday. Of 365 days, Saturdays and Sundays are removed. We also subtract 25 vacation days, and then we have a bit of ATF and public holidays on top of that. We then land on 220 working days divided by 52 weeks, which becomes 4.2 working days a week. This assumes that the employee has not taken any extra days off, been sick, or taken a "vabba" day.

Or as it was stated in an editorial in DN yesterday: ”Do not fall for the myth that Swedes work the most in Europe – we play in the bottom league. – – – If one also adds that we have very generous rules for absence – including for vacation, public holidays, parental leave, vab and sickness which are not included in the weekly comparison – the gap between us and the rest of the world grows further. Swedes work 1,437 hours per year: a full 300 hours below the OECD average … The result is just over 27.5 hours per week. That is less than in, for example, Finland and France. And places us at the bottom of the OECD's list.”

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, the labor market is not just a place for production, but it is a place where people shape their lives. Our policy aims to build a working life that unites security with development and justice with responsibility.

We want a society where it pays to work, where one can grow in their profession and where employers and employees together create the workplaces of the future, with both heart and responsibility, for we know that the one who has a job to go to feels needed and important and feels pride in being able to support oneself and one's family.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the speech. I think it was clarifying when it comes to the fact that there are different interests in politics and that there are parties alongside the political center that represent different interests. It was very clear in the member's speech that Christian Democracy represents the interests of companies in the conflict that may exist between employees and employers. There, one stands firmly on the employers' side.

The Christian Democrats are a governing party. The party that holds power at the Ministry of Employment is unfortunately not represented here today, so I must pose the question to the Christian Democrats: What concrete reforms do the Christian Democrats have to make life better for ordinary wage earners?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! If the member is not aware of the concrete proposals we have, I can say that we have introduced a transition study support which shall give employees the opportunity to develop, build a career where they work, move forward and succeed a little better and perhaps take a step forward in the work at the place where they are. That is one of them.

One can see it as that we do not want to make it better for employees just because we introduce a growth support, but it is about creating jobs. First of all, one must give people an opportunity to have a job to go to.

Today we have good laws and rules for employees so that they can have a good working environment. It may sound like I am only taking the employer's side, but I think it is all the time about the fact that we have both rights and obligations. It applies to both parties. It applies to the employer – absolutely – but it also applies to the employee.

The best thing is if one sits down together and talks. If an employee feels they do not have the rights that one should have at their work, they both need to sit down and talk about it.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that there are rights and obligations. "Do your duty, demand your right" is an old Social Democratic motto that has characterized Swedish working life for a very long time.

I do, however, somewhat object to the historical description that it was the bourgeois government's merit that the transition study support was put in place. It was actually a result of the previous government's work. At the beginning of this mandate period, this government was about to shoot it completely in the face before finally allocating more money to CSN. It was lucky that one reached an agreement in that case.

Regarding the labor market policy and the fact that the growth subsidy has been introduced, one might well have to sit down at the ministry and review the policy pursued. According to the unemployment statistics for Sweden, it does not seem to be going very well.

It is pleasing that the member thinks that the current legislation fulfills an important role and has a function, but it can be stated that the number of fatal accidents has increased. There may perhaps be an opportunity and room to look at that, even if this is not a workplace environment debate.

From the member's statement and from what has been put forward so far in this exchange of remarks, it is very clear that there are two opposing interests in Swedish politics, and it is very clear which interest the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party represents and which the Christian Democrats represent.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would then like to speak for a short while about the important steps that the government has taken to combat crime in the working life. It is something that is important to address, which is when people are being exploited. I could not see that the previous government did anything concrete about that during its eight years.

We have tightened the controls. We have improved the cooperation and coordination between authorities so that people will not be exploited. It is a matter of justice. That people are being exploited is a growing problem, as we have seen. And now that the government is taking action on it, it is one of the biggest, most important and most decisive things being done so that people who have an employment shall have the right conditions and cannot be exploited.

The steps the government has taken to combat crime in the labor market are one of the most important things it has done to provide people with good conditions to obtain a decent and proper employment.

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

Mats Arkhem (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 23 in the report.

We consider it important for all nations to preserve self-determination and national sovereignty. This applies in particular within the area of labor market policy. We oppose the EU gaining more influence there, which is currently happening through the proposals being put forward within the framework of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

We believe that the Swedish model, which is based on the parties reaching agreements on which rules and conditions shall apply in the Swedish labor market, must be protected. Unlike what seems to be the committee's view, we believe that the government should be much more active in this matter. We therefore believe that the government should take the initiative for the following measures:

Sweden shall assist the parties in the labor market and act for a national and permanent exemption from the EU's working time directive. The implementation of the minimum wage directive shall also be immediately scrapped if Denmark and Sweden win success in the European Court of Justice.

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 matters linked to Swedish labor market policy. The introduction of the EU's social pillar has shown that our Swedish labor market model is now truly being put to the test.

Madam Speaker! The labor market parties are negotiating the wage space, which has resulted in shorter working hours being prioritized in certain areas while in others, higher wages and thus higher future pensions have been chosen. One example is a standard weekly working time of 34.33 hours for Kommunal members working at night. Another example is the collective Metall agreement. There, the length of working time differs if one works shifts. For example, those who have continuous three-shift work work 36 hours per week.

At the same time, we are not blind to the reality that many wage earners face. Many consider that the 40-hour week is better suited for those who work during the day in offices compared to, for example, employees in healthcare and emergency services who work all hours of the day, every day of the year.

We also understand that different unions have different levels of strength to push through a reduction in working hours in agreements and that it may also be the unions that need it most that do not succeed in reaching their goal. There is also an equality dimension in this, which places great demands on the trade unions to use their collective strength for the benefit of all members, both men and women.

We stand fully behind the Swedish model. We have continuously worked against all attempts at restrictions. Our actions regarding the minimum wage directive serve as a good example of that.

We believe that the issue of working hours is best handled by the parties. Today's flexibility has, overall, been favorable. Depending on what the labor market parties have achieved previously, a statutory reduction in working hours would have different effects for the country's wage earners. Furthermore, shifting the issue to politics would risk changes occurring at the same pace as changes occur within the parliamentary majority and within the EU. This would reduce predictability and stability in the labor market, which disadvantages both employers and employees.

With this said, we do not rule out that an inquiry into new legislation can be appointed in the event that the parties turn to politics with a joint proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I did not intend to take any floor, but there was a very long and committed part in the speech regarding that the EU should stay away from labor market policy. I share that view. I also perceive it as that there is a very strong consensus in the committee on the issue that we should safeguard the Swedish model and that the EU should not interfere and be too meddlesome when it comes to labor market policy.

It is very easy to say it and very easy to think it, but when the Sweden Democrats actually get influence and get to be part of the decision-making, they often do exactly the opposite. The Sweden Democrats were indeed on the government's line regarding the EU's platform directive. To introduce the platform directive is actually one of the biggest interventions that the EU has made in Swedish labor market policy. It is the first or second major step into the labor market area.

Many of us were likely puzzled that KD, L and M were not clearer towards the European Parliament and the EU Commission about keeping their hands off. But the Sweden Democrats were on the line from day one. They held the government's hand so that the government could get the platform directive through.

It was furthermore during the Swedish presidency that this was pushed and driven forward. My question is: Why did the Sweden Democrats not stand up in the issue of the EU's platform directive – if this is now truly important?

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

Mats Arkhem (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am quite new to the Committee on Employment. I previously sat on the Committee on Justice. I haven't quite had time to familiarize myself with all the rules and dates and what has happened and so on, but my perception is nevertheless that we really feel this way.

I joined the Sweden Democrats in 2009, and it is my absolute conviction that we have had this policy all along. This is our opinion.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is an important message for the Sweden Democrat voters that this is truly important – but in negotiations with the government, other issues are prioritized. It was completely obvious that the Sweden Democrats and the government had negotiated this issue. I believe that was very clear among the committee members.

This is a major restriction. Both parties in the labor market are genuinely concerned about what the EU's platform directive will entail. If the implementation is done in the wrong way, it truly risks breaking the Swedish model. I am genuinely concerned that this was a first step. What is the next step that the EU will introduce to the Swedish labor market?

Unfortunately, that is a bit the way it is with the EU Commission—they tend to take the whole body if you give them a little finger. In this case, the Swedish government has done that. They have given the EU Commission a little finger. They have said that "it is okay for you to go in and influence Swedish labor market policy."

I have full respect for the fact that it can be difficult to keep up when one has not sat in the committee during old cases, but this was the first time that the EU truly entered Swedish labor market policy – or the second, possibly. Then the Sweden Democrats say: Welcome!

In the future, it will be a test for the Sweden Democrats to actually stand by what they believe. I hope that the Sweden Democrats will be tough in the negotiations ahead. My simple question is: Will the Sweden Democrats say no to similar proposals in the future?

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

Mats Arkhem (SD)

Madam Speaker! It becomes – as someone has said – almost a bit comical to smear me as a Sweden Democrat and the entire Sweden Democrat party as some kind of EU-friends and the EU's greatest protectors, because we actually are not. I believe that quite a few agree with that.

We are fundamentally a bit skeptical. We are not opponents, but we are skeptical in many respects. But I think it will probably turn out quite well in the end anyway – with respect to the fact that I don't quite know what has been decided in these specific issues. I cannot, however, imagine that we have agreed to anything that would be harmful to either Swedish companies or Swedish wage earners.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually just want a clarification. In the guidelines from our congress – the fantastic congress – which I read out earlier, we Social Democrats write that working hours need to be shortened.

I became a bit puzzled, or what one should say, because I simply did not quite understand where the Sweden Democrats stand on the issue of the need for a reduction in working hours. Are you for it, or are you against it?

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

Mats Arkhem (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member himself has said, this is up to the parties in the labor market. Some think that reduced working hours is very important. Others think it is less important. It is not up to us politicians to decide how people should work and so on.

It is also the case that working time is not just about hours and minutes but also days, weeks, and years. The parental leave, for example, has been increased. In 1974 it was 180 days, 1975 it was 210 days, 1978 it was 270 days, 1986 it was 360 days, 1989 it was 450 days and 2002 it was 480 days. So a reduction in working time has indeed occurred, though not in hours per week.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! We agree that the parties need to move forward, but as I have just read out, the Social Democrats have as a guideline that the working hours need to be shortened. That is the Social Democrats' view. Regardless of who is to solve that question, the Social Democrats enter into this with the view that the working hours need to be shortened.

My question to the Sweden Democrat member was: What do the Sweden Democrats think regarding the reduction of working hours? Or do you have no opinion? In previous statements, you have said no to the reduction of working hours. You have said that you do not want a reduction of working hours. If a change has occurred on that point, I would gladly be informed of it here.

The members of the committee began to deliberate on parental leave and vacation weeks, days, years, weeks, hours and so on. If there are proposals from the Sweden Democrats regarding more vacation days, an additional vacation week or extended parental leave, I would also like to receive those. It may be that I am misunderstanding, but I am still curious.

I am also curious about one last thing. The member of parliament presented an argument that politics must be prepared to act if the parties ask for help. There have been so many times in Swedish labor market history where the parties have come to politics and said that they need legislation in an area.

If it were the case that the parties ask for help with the issue of shortening working hours, are the Sweden Democrats prepared to sit down and negotiate with the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, and the Liberals on this issue? And what perspective will be taken then? Will you be in favor of a shortening of working hours? Will you take the side of the wage earners, or will you be against a shortening of working hours? Will you take the side of the employers? It could be that you are in agreement in that situation. I do not know that. What I actually want to clarify is where the Sweden Democrats stand on the issue of shortening working hours. What starting values will you bring to a potential negotiation?

(Applause)

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

Mats Arkhem (SD)

Madam Speaker! In good Swedish administrative practice, we naturally want to appoint an inquiry and let it see what it comes to.

As I said in my speech, it is different. Night workers within Kommunal, for example, have much shorter working hours than those who work in offices during the day, because they have that need. The disadvantage is that, in the long run, it results in lower wages and thus lower pensions. So, it is not entirely positive to work less. There is no free lunch here or there, and one cannot say that it is only the companies that should bear the costs. No, it will also be reflected in future wages.

The companies may have to take a certain part of the hit. The employees may have to take a certain part of the hit, and if it is a manufacturing company or a service company, its customers may also have to take a certain part of the hit. It is not a completely easy question that is black or white. It is, as with everything else, a lot of gray areas.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a wealthy country. We have high productivity and also a strong economy and a well-educated workforce. But despite this, people today work under greater stress than ever before. Burnout is increasing, sick leave is skyrocketing, and people hit a wall before they have even reached the age of 40. At the same time, we see that profits in the business sector are hitting records. Employers are making billion-kronor surpluses on the work that our wage earners scrape together for them every day.

Still, we hear from the bourgeois parties that we cannot afford to shorten the working hours – that a six-hour workday or a four-day week is a utopia.

But the reduction of working hours is not just about working time. It is about our life time – about people's ability to endure a full working life and to have time for their children, their family, their health, and their everyday life. It is about the right to recovery and balance.

This is actually a question that has roots precisely in the Riksdag. For it was not voluntary agreements that gave us the eight-hour day – it was legislation. It was not agreements between the parties that introduced the five-day week, but it was a political decision.

In 1919, the Riksdag decided to introduce the eight-hour day. In 1973, we got the five-day week. These were major steps taken after years of trade union struggle, but they also required that the politicians and the politics took their responsibility. We must do that again now.

Since the 1970s, productivity per hour worked has increased significantly. We produce more in fewer hours than ever before. But these gains have not gone to the workers or to a reduction in working hours; instead, as usual, they only go towards increased profits and dividends.

One might think that it is only Vänsterpartiet that demands shorter working hours, but that is not the case. Kommunal does as well, because their members can no longer cope. They are nursing assistants, healthcare assistants, childcare workers – women who toil in our common welfare, often with involuntary part-time work and in stress and understaffing.

Trade requires the same thing. In shops, warehouses, and e-commerce, it is a high tempo, physically demanding, and in addition, often insecure employment and poor schedules. These are not unreasonable demands. It is about making life work.

There are many other countries that have shown the way. In France, the normal working time is 35 hours a week by law. In Belgium, they have introduced the possibility of a four-day week without a pay cut. In Iceland, they have tested reduced working hours broadly in the public sector with incredibly positive results. It resulted in less stress, higher productivity, and more satisfied employees. But it is not rocket science.

Then one might wonder why we hesitate here in Sweden. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats, who historically have been a driving force in the struggle for working hours, have somewhat parked the issue in some freezer and left it to the parties in the labor market. I think it is a bit historically illiterate. We know, as said, that the major breakthroughs for shortening working hours do not come that way.

Hiding behind the parties is just a way of pushing the question into the future – a future that will never come as long as the labor-employer side and the right say no.

Madam Speaker! The issue of working hours is and has always been as much a political issue as a trade union issue. I mean that the big question we must ask ourselves is: Do we humans exist here on earth only to work, or do we work in order to be able to live? I think we go with the latter. Surely we want a society where all people have time for their children, for their leisure interests, for their involvement in community life – perhaps in a political party, what do I know – and a working life that is sustainable in the long run, where we can also work our whole lives without being worn out.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is losing control over certain parts of the labor market. We can see this, for example, with platform work, which we have had to deal with for about ten years, or gig jobs, as they are often called. Those jobs are performed by people who work via apps. They have no employment. They have no security. Very often, they lack opportunities to influence their conditions. This is not the future – it is the past. It is straight-up a return to an unregulated market where the worker is completely without legal protection and the employer is completely invisible.

The platform companies do not even claim to be employers. They claim that those who work there are self-employed. But in practice, these individuals lack the power and resources that real entrepreneurs have. In reality, this is just a rewriting and a way for companies to evade responsibility, taxes, workplace safety laws, and collective agreements. It is an anti-union practice in its most sophisticated form.

Unfortunately, this is not the only threat we see. The labor market is changing, but unfortunately, labor law is not changing with it. On the contrary, we have seen more and more precarious employments.

Under 2007, the Moderaterna introduced general temporary employment. Now, this has been replaced with specific temporary employment. It is thus a form of employment that basically means that one does not have any employment. It means that an employer can employ persons on temporary basis completely without objective reasons.

This means that, for example, young people, women, foreign-born individuals, and so on, get stuck in an eternal hamster wheel of temporary jobs. It is an insecurity that creates stress, hinders life plans, and undermines trade union strength.

Another worrying development is the phenomenon called "hyvling" (shaving). It is when an employer, with reference to a labor shortage, lowers the employment rate without laying off staff, i.e., that one sort of shaves off the top. It means that people can, from one day to the next, lose large parts of their income, completely without warning, without transition, and without any seniority rules applying.

Despite the fact that a legislative change has been made, it has become clear that there are loopholes here. We saw how H&M reduced the working hours for 1,500 employees. Unfortunately, the new law has proven to be toothless.

Trade and other unions have demanded a change and also want that hyvling be prohibited by law. Vänsterpartiet also thinks so.

Let me summarize: What we see here now are several expressions of one and the same development, that is to say that the power in the labor market, which has always been unequal, has shifted even further in favor of the employers. Labor law is being loosened, the unions' position is being weakened, and security has been eroded at the cost of people's health, quality of life, and faith in the future.

What we obviously must do is to change this so that platform companies are recognized as employers and thus take responsibility for the work environment and insurance. Fixed-term employment shall only be used when one can truly demonstrate that the work need exists. We shall also, of course, ban "hyvlingar" so that no one suddenly loses their income without any warning or notice of termination.

Madam Speaker! The time has come. I know that the citizens have it in them if they want to, and if not, we will have to replace the government in a year. We must, in fact, restore the balance in the labor market. We must strengthen labor rights in step with the way working life is actually changing. It is about both respect for people and about decency. It is about a sustainable society. That is the only way a society can develop. No one should also have to live in insecurity just so someone else can maximize and make a profit on them.

With that, I would like to thank you for the floor and, despite all my reservations, move for approval of reservation 17.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Ciczie Weidby for the speech! We may not agree on exactly everything in the description that Member Weidby read out, but I thought it was a good speech. I also believe the Member knows that I thought so, in some parts at least.

I want to use my turn to ask the member a genuine question. I think the member is often good at highlighting an issue that is very important in the Swedish labor market, and that is the issue of platform work. I know that the member has a great commitment to that issue, and I genuinely appreciate it. I think, namely, that the platform work that is spreading across the Swedish labor market is a very big problem. That is also what the party I represent thinks.

I know, as I have said, that the member is genuinely committed and spends a lot of time on this and has done so during her time in the Swedish Riksdag and the Committee on Employment. I want to give the member the opportunity to develop her thoughts regarding this issue and what concrete proposals she and her party envision that could make it so that we get this in order, or how one should put it. I do not do this out of ill will but because I am genuinely interested and want to give the member that opportunity.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! No, Adrian Magnusson would never be malicious. I do not see how he could have that in him. Also, thank you so very much for your words, Adrian Magnusson!

It is a strange order in the EU – first one must take a position on whether a proposal violates the subsidiarity principle, and then the content is to be negotiated. It is a very strange order. But it is true: Precisely when the platform directive was first presented, we actually stood on the same side as the Socialdemokraterna. As the so-called gig work grew – as we began to see more and more Uber taxis and Foodora began to become more common – I however began to dig into what is the actual problem.

The actual problem is that one always, or very often, lets these persons provide all the equipment themselves – but above all, that they very rarely have an employment. One is thus making them self-employed. But one does not always make them self-employed with F-tax, as applies to others and which allows them the opportunity to exercise all their rights. Instead, one lets a goalkeeper company, a service, be the employer and the means for these persons to manage their own employment.

Now I only have a few seconds of speaking time left, but this is the big problem. There is absolutely no one ensuring that workplace environment regulations are complied with. No one ensures that all the rights one has during employment exist, and we should forbid that.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for developing your thoughts, member! I wondered a bit when the concrete proposal would come, but the member managed to do it at the last second. The member will, however, have two minutes to develop her thoughts – I will soon give her that time – so she does not need to worry.

I think it is commendable and desirable that the member, as mentioned, spends a lot of time on this issue. I appreciate it. Now, one cannot interpellate another Member of Parliament, otherwise I would have gladly done so just to have an exchange. But we shall have to see each other in another context and have a glass of cola or two to discuss these issues more closely.

We Social Democrats have, among other things, proposed that an inquiry could be appointed to look very thoroughly at platform work in Sweden and also come up with proposals on how one could address some of these problems. Now, it may be the case that the inquiry looking at the implementation of the platform directive will also look at those types of questions, but my question to the member is whether the member and her party take a negative stance toward a more thorough inquiry regarding platform work in Sweden.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! One cannot be against an investigation, Adrian Magnusson? It is very harmless to conduct an investigation, so we can absolutely do that. An investigation is also currently looking at how we can introduce the platform directive in Sweden.

The biggest difference between Vänsterpartiet and the Socialdemokraterna regarding this is that the Socialdemokraterna and several trade unions – though not Transportarbetareförbundet, which could indeed be the one to organize very many platform workers – say that the Swedish model should take care of this. One should, so to speak, organize the workers and in that way achieve increased job security for these people.

Here we come to the heart of the matter, namely that these people are not always employed. And even if they were, they are very insecure employments, which makes it very difficult to organize these people. The Swedish model, which is often good and which could organize away the problem, therefore does not work as far as platform work is concerned.

The reasonable thing is the following: If a person has a company logo on them and performs a job based on that company logo, then it should also be that company that pays the salary. But it is called platform economy for a reason, meaning that the work is performed via a platform. The Foodora person at one end is just a name, and then there is someone at the other end who buys a service via the platform. In this way, one gets away with the entire concept of employer and employee. That is what is truly dangerous about the platform economy and what threatens to destroy our entire Swedish model.

We'll have a glass of cola, Adrian Magnusson, so I can tell you more!

(ADRIAN MAGNUSSON (S): Very good!)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have heard during tonight's debate that the majority is to be worried about bad figures and that the opposition is taking the lead, but I think like this: Based on what we have heard in the debate, it is a very divided opposition. We heard it in the latest exchange of remarks, where they were not in agreement, and also in other issues.

Now I have genuinely interesting questions that I think I genuinely want answers to.

In the speech the member gave, she made it sound as if the employers are taking everything – high wages and large dividend payments. Then my question is whether the member Ciczie Weidby thinks that the wage agreement movement has totally failed every year that wages have been negotiated. Does she think the parties have not succeeded? Is she completely dissatisfied with what they have come to?

My second question is simply whether Member Ciczie Weidby personally knows any sole trader.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I heard three questions: Do I think the employers are grabbing all the profits? Do I think the wage development has been poor in recent years? Do I know any self-employed people?

Do I think everyone is looking out for themselves? No, not everyone is looking out for themselves. But of course, the vast majority of entrepreneurs want the profit. Regardless of who does the work for them, that is obviously the case. It is not that someone starts a company just because they are a good person who thinks: "Poor things! There are three people in the square who don't have any jobs. I think I'll start a company so that they have somewhere to work!" That is how it works very rarely and has very rarely happened.

Actually, we politicians should not review the collective bargaining movement regarding wages, as it is, as we have discussed before, the parties' responsibility. But it is clear that wages have lagged behind for a very long time. I have worked within Trade for large parts of my life, and there the wage increase is very poor. It is very often based on a percentage, where 3 percent of a high wage is a lot while 3 percent of a low wage is not particularly much. Without reviewing all too harshly, I can therefore say that it has been difficult to keep up in low-wage occupations. There has been a lot of wage erosion.

Does Ciczie Weidby know any self-employed people? So many! I even have several friends who are tattoo artists – I think that shows.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! No, it is well clear that the person who starts a company does so so that it will be viable and so that one can live off it. We also have legislation that says that a limited company must make a profit. It is statutory, so one cannot get around that. It would be very strange if one started a company and thought that it should run at a loss and that one would have to close down in half a year or a year.

The entrepreneurs I know are very considerate and care about their employees. I believe that the entrepreneurs the member knows are also that. It is what we have a mandate to manage in our trust as members of parliament: to meet the companies, to be out on site visits and to discuss both challenges and problems and things that we do not think are right.

Trade may be lagging behind. At the same time, one has a good agreement with 100 percent overtime pay on red days. The person who works in Trade and works every other weekend therefore ultimately has a fairly reasonable salary, one could think.

It is clear that everyone wants to earn a little more money. And that is the case that we live in a fantastically good country, because everyone can start a company. As Member Weidby presents it, if one becomes a self-employed entrepreneur, one can earn as much money as one wants and just grab for oneself.

However, I know many entrepreneurs who I do not believe the member would want to trade places with if one were to calculate their working hours at an hourly wage. They put in many hours, both early mornings, late evenings and weekends, and always have the responsibility for their employees.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I was clear in my previous contribution that I also know many self-employed people – everything from musicians to artists and tattooists. I know exactly how much they work. I also know that several of them have had to stop because we have a much, much worse economy. If a pack of butter costs 80 kronor, people prioritize that over getting a new butterfly on their arm. I am definitely aware of this.

Member of Parliament Camilla Rinaldo Miller makes it sound as if I am the world's most evil and she is the world's kindest, that I hate all companies and she loves all companies. Of course, the world is not quite so black and white. I know that Camilla Rinaldo Miller knows that I also travel around the country and meet both large and small companies. I have been in my county, and I have been in Övertorneå and Kalmar.

It is of course not that I do not know how it really looks. I also know that it is one thing with the small businesses, but I have worked at the large companies. They exist too, and it is not gold and green forests there. There is a very high tempo, very bad schedules and a very large difference between the people who work there with insecure employment and so on.

The whole country does not run on all those small, cute, picturesque small businesses, but very many are these really large companies, and they really want to grab as much profit as possible, preferably at the expense of those who perform the work. Preferably, they do not want to pay high wages and preferably not overtime pay either if they had been allowed to decide.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 6.

Sweden has a long and proud tradition of being a country where work pays off, where people, regardless of background, get a chance to grow and where rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

The work line is a proud tradition, but that tradition is being broken. Unemployment today is higher than it has been in 25 years. It is not just a figure in a table from SCB – it is thousands of people who wake up in the morning without a place to go, without colleagues to meet and without a wage to live on. It is young boys and girls growing up without seeing their parents go to work.

I believe in Sweden. But I do not believe in this government's policy. The Tidö parties have now held power for more than two years – two years of promises, two years of rhetoric, two years without labor market policy reforms. The work line has become the unemployment line.

It is not just passive but directly dangerous. For every day that passes without reforms, the gaps widen. For every month that passes without change, people lose faith that it is possible to influence their future. For every year without action, an exclusion is cemented that threatens the entire social contract.

What is the government's answer then? They point fingers. They point fingers at newcomers, at municipalities, at private matching actors. They point fingers at everyone except themselves.

Madam Speaker! In this debate, a clear dividing line in Swedish politics is revealed. I share the government parties' basic view on work. But I become concerned when I hear the rest of the opposition talk about the country's entrepreneurs. It sounds as if the country's entrepreneurs were some gang-criminal villains who ruin things for people and who should be locked up. It is quite the opposite – it is the companies that actually ensure that many people have a place to go in the morning and that ensure that people have a wage to live on, which allows them to improve the standard of living for themselves and their families.

I think that there are three "K"s that are very important here: costs, complications, and competence.

It is too expensive to hire in Sweden today, especially as small business owners. It is too complicated to run a company. The Center Party has had a campaign and traveled around the whole country to meet the country's entrepreneurs. What strikes me is that they are drained of energy by rules that we have created and that officials sometimes make up, if one is to be completely honest. It is a dangerous development, because without the country's entrepreneurs, we cannot even have a debate on the work environment. It is they who create the country's jobs.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. Fundamentally, the Swedish labor market model is a strength. I am concerned that the government parties gave in so easily on the issue of the EU's platform directive. That the parties – unions and employers – reach agreements without political interference has created stability over time. This is a model that has served, serves, and will continue to serve Sweden well. It is a model worth protecting. At the same time, we see examples of how it can cause problems when it is used in a way that strikes blindly.

The conflict between IF Metall and Tesla demonstrates the importance of respecting the right to bargain and the role of collective agreements. But we also see how sympathy measures from trade unions risk hitting completely independent small businesses that even have collective agreements. Suppliers of software, IT, local care, and property services are companies that have nothing to do with the conflict but are still affected. If a company risks going under because it happens to be a subcontractor to a large company in conflict, Sweden becomes a very risky country to be a small business owner in.

We believe that the government should return with proposals and review the rules regarding sympathy measures. I understand that this particular conflict is sensitive. The Centre Party is not on Tesla's side, but we stand on the side of small businesses.

Madam Speaker! Labor market policy is not just numbers and diagrams. It is policy that determines whether people get their chance – their first chance, their second chance, or their last chance. It is about human dignity and faith in the future. The reality is such that action is required. We need a labor line that works and a policy that is not built on signals but on results. It is a policy that makes Sweden stronger. More people shall work. More shall feel that their effort matters. More shall be able to shape their own lives. That is how we build a Sweden that holds together and functions and where everyone has a place. We cannot afford a policy that only talks. We need a policy that gets the job done.

I have repeatedly pointed out from this rostrum – and I will continue to do so – that the government is delivering in some areas. It concerns both good and less good proposals. The Ministry of Justice has produced over a hundred propositions. The Ministry of Employment has delivered four. It is thus three liberal ministers who have not gotten the job done. Two of the propositions are also communications regarding the National Audit Office's report.

One can sometimes take liberties in the debate, but this is directly embarrassing. We have the highest unemployment in 25 years, and the Minister for Employment is not working. On the other hand, there are many in our country who are going to work tomorrow, while we others might be eating strawberry cake and celebrating national day. There are assistant nurses, police officers, and self-employed people who get up, work, and ensure that this country functions when we others are going to celebrate national day.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! That we work too much has consequences. It manifests in ill health, in sick leaves, and in a life where time never quite suffices. It is noticeable in children who grow up with exhausted parents, in relationships that do not have time to be nurtured, and in a working life that is not sustainable over time. Yet, we hold onto the working time standard that was set more than 50 years ago. The 40-hour week was introduced in the early 1970s. Since then, productivity has increased significantly, but the statutory working time has largely remained unchanged.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that the time has come for the next major reform in working life. We want to introduce a statutory reduction of working hours step by step with a view towards a four-day work week. We know that it works. LO's working hours investigation shows that between 40 and 50 percent of the working hours that disappear during a general reduction are compensated for through increased productivity.

When people get sufficient recovery, reduced stress, and better control over their working hours, efficiency increases. We already see this in practice. Workplaces that have introduced a six-hour workday or a four-day workweek report both reduced sick leave and increased job satisfaction without productivity being impaired.

Shorter working hours also create space for innovation. Companies review their methods of working, invest in technology and reduce waste. It is not about running faster but about working smarter.

Shorter working hours is not just about increased productivity. It is also about justice. In female-dominated occupations within healthcare, school, and care, people are worn out – not because they do not love their jobs, but because the working conditions are unreasonable. The result of long shifts, chronic stress, and lack of recovery is that many leave their jobs, reduce their working hours, or are signed off on sick leave.

When the professional groups in the welfare sector can no longer cope, it is not just a workplace environment issue; it is a societal crisis. These professions are the backbone of society. They deserve more than applause. They deserve time to recover, the strength to endure, and the opportunity to live sustainably. Implementing a reduction in working hours is taking responsibility to ensure that these professions are sustainable over time. It is a way to secure competence, safeguard quality, and increase attractiveness. It is an investment in the welfare – not a cost.

Madam Speaker! The opponents warn of societal collapse. How will healthcare function? How will we afford it? But no one is suggesting that we change everything overnight. Just like previous working time reforms, this shall be implemented in stages in a responsible manner with continuous follow-up and in close cooperation with the parties in the labor market.

We know that several trade unions already stand behind the demand for shorter working hours. There is strong support out in the workplaces, but politics must also take its responsibility. When it is said that we must choose between shorter working hours and higher wages, we need to remind ourselves that Sweden is one of the world's richest countries. The productivity increase since the 1970s has, for the most part, gone to profits and higher incomes at the top. Very little has been converted into more time for ordinary people.

This is not about a lack of resources; it is about what we prioritize. Time is one of our most underestimated resources and a crucial prerequisite for a sustainable society. We cannot build a sustainable society if people do not have time to live, if the puzzle of life never fits together, and if we pay for growth with our health. If we are to manage the climate transition, strengthen welfare, and meet the mental ill-health, we must redistribute both resources and time.

To legislate on working hours is not radical. It is historically anchored. Miljöpartiet believes in a society where we work to live, not live to work. It is a society where time is seen as a matter of justice and where we dare to believe that life can contain more than work and that it actually makes the whole society stronger. Shorter working hours are not a dream, Madam Speaker. It is fully possible. That being said, I move for approval of reservation 18.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 June.)

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