Labor law and working hours

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we stand here again. It is tight between the debates. I can state that the representative from the Ministry of Employment is conspicuous by their absence today as well. It is only to be regretted.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the motions.

In this report, the Sweden Democrats have submitted a special statement. We fully support the Swedish labor market model during the mandate period and have also previously consistently worked against all attempts at state intervention. Issues regarding both wage formation and working hours are best handled by the parties, and the flexibility that our model provides has overall been very favorable.

The major reform in the field of labor law that was implemented relatively recently, with the parties' principle agreement as the basis, demonstrates the strength of our model. It is primarily the parties who agree on the terms and what shall apply on the Swedish labor market.

Mr. Speaker! We have opposed all EU legislation in the field of labor law with full force in order to safeguard the Swedish labor market model. We will continue to work in this direction in future political collaborations and will therefore return to these issues in other contexts.

Mr. Speaker! Reduction of working hours is an issue that has flared up now and which is relevant in election times. The latest reduction of working hours was enacted by law in 1973. At that time, a five-day work week was introduced. The regular working time became 40 hours per week. Before that, the weekly working time was 48 hours, and at that time, one also worked on Saturdays.

Recently, there has been a debate about whether it is time once again to legislate on the reduction of working hours. The parties in the labor market are negotiating on the wage space, which has resulted in that in some areas, shorter working hours have been prioritized, while in other areas, higher wages and pensions have been chosen. As an example, a common weekly working time for parts of Kommunals members who work at night is 34.33 hours. Another example is the collective Metall agreement, where the length of working time differs when working shifts. Those who have continuous three-shifts often work 36 hours per week.

Mr. Speaker! We are not blind to the reality that many wage earners face. The forty-hour week is considered by many to be better suited for those who work during the day in offices in comparison to, for example, those employed in healthcare, who work all hours of the day and all days of the year.

We also understand that different unions have different levels of strength to push through reductions in working hours in agreements and that it may also be the unions that need it most who have not reached their goals.

We believe that the issue of working hours is best handled by the parties. Today's flexibility has, overall, been very 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 employees. Furthermore, shifting the issue to politics would risk changes at the same pace as changes in the parliamentary majority. This would reduce predictability and stability in the labor market, which disadvantages both employers and employees.

With this said, Sverigedemokraterna do not rule out that an investigation can be commissioned regarding new legislation in the event that the parties jointly turn to the politicians with a joint proposal if they do not reach an agreement at all. We cannot close that door.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats also value cooperation across national borders and view dialogue with other states in various forms positively. It is, however, important for all nations to preserve self-determination and national sovereignty. This applies in particular within the labor market policy area.

Today, unfortunately, there are political parties working to ensure that the EU gains more influence over the Swedish labor market. This is something that the Sverigedemokraterna strongly oppose. The Swedish model has functioned as a good example around the world and is based on the parties agreeing on which rules and conditions shall apply on the Swedish labor market.

Through the social pillar, our own right to decide which rules shall apply on the Swedish labor market is being slowly challenged. We believe that the Sweden Democrats is the only party today that fully safeguards Sweden's self-determination and sovereignty.

An example of this, Mr. Speaker, is our view on the working time directive. The directive regulates daily rest and is intended as a protection for the health and safety of workers. Many Swedish operations, however, are built around collectively agreed working hours that breach the directive. The EU Commission has questioned whether Swedish collective agreements are compatible with the EU's working time directive. We strongly urge the government to assist the parties against the EU's influence on Swedish labor market policy. The Swedish parties' agreement shall apply unrestrictedly in Sweden.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats naturally stand behind all their motions, but for the sake of time at the future vote, I move for approval only of reservation 13.

Labor law regulates perhaps the most fundamental aspects of people's lives. It is something that many of us devote large parts of our lives to. We discuss it with friends at the kitchen table over dinner. It often takes up a lot of mental effort even in our free time. It is about work.

Working life has always been characterized and will probably always be characterized by a power relationship between the employer and the employee. It is an unequal relationship. Labour law shall attempt to level this difference, but it also has another task, namely to make working life a bit more bearable for people. Another task is to make life a bit better for hard-working ordinary people. It has largely succeeded in this during the 20th century, and it is a result of hard work by the Swedish and international labor movement.

Mr. Speaker! However, nothing is self-evident. Working life can become increasingly miserable again. We see how the power of employees is decreasing in relation to the power of employers. We see it through a working life where more and more employees are monitored at work and their workdays are managed by the minute. People have their work tasks micro-managed, their toilet breaks timed, and every single work task scrutinized. This is made possible, not least, through the ever-widening use of algorithms and artificial intelligence.

We also see it in the reporting on poor working conditions in workplaces across the country. We see it in the reporting on how young people who get their first job at café chains here in Stockholm fare terribly when the employer ignores their alarms. We see it when their stories are dismissed and when their work becomes a misery and something they must endure just to get a wage to buy food.

Why does it turn out like this? A fundamental explanation is the high unemployment. How are you supposed to dare to raise your voice if there are ten people who can replace you and are waiting to take your job? Who dares to protest when the first job at the café could be at stake? When your entire livelihood, however small it may be, can disappear in an instant, insecure employment creates an additional layer of misery.

Mr. Speaker! We are usually in agreement here in the chamber regarding the excellence of the Swedish model. I see no reason to deviate from that today. We have a model that we should be proud of. The parties in the labor market take responsibility for many conditions in the Swedish labor market. Historically, this has resulted in few conflicts, high growth, and good working conditions. In some countries, the military can be called in against workers. In Sweden, unions and employers sit at the negotiating table instead.

However, not everyone takes responsibility for the Swedish model. Some employers challenge it and almost seem to want to see it dissolved. The Swedish model is not a spiritual entity that exists of itself. It requires someone to take responsibility for it. If the Swedish model is to remain strong, employers must take responsibility for it. We cannot have an order where certain companies stand outside the model, challenge it, and consider themselves something completely different, even though they are employers in practice.

Mr. Speaker! The role of the unions is also completely crucial for the Swedish model, for good work and a good working life. If the union membership rate falls or if the unions fall silent in the workplaces, we are in a bad position. Then the stories we can read about today will be regarded as a thing of the past in a few years. We will get a miserable working life in Sweden with suffering from beginning to end.

During Christmas, I read a book about a farming family in Skåne. They experienced that the work and, by extension, the whole life was predestined. It was to be miserable, difficult, and troublesome. The way out was death, regardless of when it came, but it came sooner or later. Until then, there was only to endure.

This is how it was once upon a time. We have moved away from such a working life, not just because it became that way, but because we, or at least a majority of us, thought that we would not have it that way in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that most of us from time to time see food delivery couriers with coolers on their backs cycling past. They are the modern day laborers. In the past, people hung around factory doors to get paid for the day. Today, they hang around McDonalds or with the taxi at outside Stockholm Central Station.

Just last night, a food delivery rider on a moped almost hit me while I was walking home after the workday. It wasn't particularly pleasant, but what is truly unpleasant is that we have large companies in this so-called industry that try to shrug off employer responsibility and refuse to sign collective agreements. We cannot have an arrangement where companies that are actually employers hide behind an app. It leads to a race to the bottom, a worse working environment, and a risk to people's lives and health.

We Social Democrats want a broad approach to the entire issue through an inquiry that can map out the extent of the platform economy and provide proposals on how we can address the problems.

On the topic, the Social Democrats note that the report titled Implementation of the Platform Directive is welcome. It is possible that it will lead to improvements for the working conditions of food delivery workers. In any case, it will make the management and distribution of work more transparent and strengthen the possibilities for organizing. But the big, uncertain element remains: Who bears the employer responsibility?

Just like many others, we Social Democrats have great hopes that the results of the investigation will succeed in solving the at least difficult knots that exist here. We look forward to the government returning to the Riksdag, because there is an urgency.

Mr. Speaker! The question of shortening working hours has become more topical than it has been in a very long time. A united LO has submitted a negotiation proposal to Svenskt Näringsliv and to the employers, and it shows that the issue is highly topical and real. The issue of working hours sparks engagement at kitchen tables and at workplaces all over the country.

The Social Democrats welcome that there is now a serious and general discussion about working hours and their distribution, and the Social Democrats support the efforts to achieve a reduction in working hours. The Social Democrats welcome LO's initiative and look forward to the discussion continuing to be conducted in society and between the parties, where it primarily belongs. We are monitoring the parties' work on the issue with great interest.

Mr. Speaker! I am genuinely concerned about the development of working life in Sweden. I am genuinely concerned about the increasing number of testimonies I am becoming aware of regarding surveillance in working life, micro-management, privacy violations, harassment and abuses that are ignored. They also concern insecure employment and "hyvling" [downsizing/trimming], where people's employment is reduced to zero and nothing. There are employers who are acquiring ever more power over their employees and taking ever greater freedoms against them.

Central to creating a better working life in our country is to lower unemployment. A society with low unemployment is a society with more secure jobs, more secure wage earners, and a better working life. It is a society where people perhaps do not experience work as fulfilling every day, but at least do not experience it as miserable. It is not a working life that the farmhands I read about in Christmas had, or that the farmhands whom Ivar Lo-Johansson wrote about had.

What is also central is the trade union organization. Strong trade unions with many members protesting against poor working conditions create a better working life. The role, influence, and importance of the unions cannot be underestimated. They are central to getting a little closer to what we want to call good work.

Mr. Speaker! After today's debate, the balance of power in the Swedish labor market will not suddenly change – I realize that. Tomorrow, unfortunately, we will still have a balance of power in the Swedish labor market between employers and employees that is heavily in favor of the employers. I hope, however, that after the election this autumn and when we stand here next year, we will have come a little closer to equalizing those power imbalances. That requires this country to be governed by politicians who see the power imbalances and want to reduce them and who believe in good work – because that is not a given.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to thank Adrian Magnusson for a very good speech. I agree with most of what he said – almost everything.

I would, however, like to have a small clarification. In your speech, you mentioned some things regarding where the Social Democrats stand when it comes to the reduction of working hours. Is it a matter for the parties to negotiate on all levels, or should it be legislated? The spokesperson on labor market issues was very clear. He said: legislation over my dead body. At the same time, leading Social Democrats are very clear that they want to see legislation on the issue.

I can understand that one wants it in certain issues. It can, for example, become very difficult for some trade unions to negotiate wages with their own municipal council members, where the municipalities are governed by Social Democrats.

I would like to get a clarification from Adrian Magnusson. Is the Social Democrats' position that it is entirely a party issue, or is there a possibility to open up to that one also wants to legislate?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Persson, for the question!

I may be unclear, but I hope I was clear. I thought I said at the end that the issue primarily belongs with the parties. In the Social Democratic congress decision from our congress last year, it clearly states that the issue shall be decided by the parties. But as Member Persson stated in his own speech, it can end up in a situation where legislation may be necessary. If it is needed for any reason and if the parties themselves propose that legislative measures are needed to resolve this issue, we have opened for that in our congress decision. But we are very clear that the issue primarily belongs with the parties.

Member Persson himself accounted for some reasons why that would be appropriate. The Social Democrats largely, I would say, share the assessment that Member Persson presented. This is already done in a number of collective agreement areas. If the parties can resolve this issue, it would probably be best for the Swedish labor market in the long term but also in the short term. Our view is therefore that the issue belongs with the parties.

Then it is possible that Member Persson has heard certain, as he expressed it, leading Social Democrats – he will surely provide some examples of who they are – at some point express that they would like to have legislation. In larger parties, there can be many different opinions on how to proceed. I am sure that not everyone thinks the same way when Member Persson attends membership meetings for the Sverigedemokraterna in Bromölla. I would be concerned if everyone in a party or a movement expressed the same opinion.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to ask any leading questions, but Adrian Magnusson's own party leader said this in a number of debates a while ago, even though she has toned it down now. The chair of the women's association is also pushing the issue quite hard. It is not just any members. But enough about that question.

Adrian Magnusson mentioned a lot about the danger of the reduced organization within the trade unions, and I agree with him. The Swedish model is based on equal partners, and it is therefore very worrying when one hears, for example, that LO has lost 10,000 members. This weakens the Swedish model in the long run, because one of the parties becomes much weaker.

My question to Adrian Magnusson is quite simple: What does Adrian Magnusson believe is the main reason why, especially the LO unions, are losing so many members? It is an interesting question to ask, because I know that Adrian Magnusson is very engaged in and interested in these issues. I would very much like to hear his answer.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am not aware of the statements that my party chairman has made. But as said, in a broad movement where there is an extensive ideological debate, different opinions can sometimes emerge in different contexts. I believe that is good for a party. I had a chairman of the municipal council in Ystad, a social democrat, who taught me one thing: In a room where everyone thinks alike, not much is thought. He is right about that. It is something that I think about quite often.

When it comes to why LO-affiliated unions are losing members, I believe that for a long time people have experienced that their everyday lives are not getting better. People have for a long time had increasingly smaller margins, and then one has to cut back on the expenses one has. When people have not experienced that they have gotten it better, perhaps they feel: What do trade unions actually do for me when they negotiate? Do I not get to share in the production surpluses to the extent that is needed? One sees that there is more and more money in society, more and more profits, but the wages do not become that much higher and the conditions do not become that much better. On the contrary, one can rather experience that it is getting worse. Then I think there is a risk that one leaves trade unions.

This is obviously serious, because it is an evil spiral. If trade unions get fewer members, it becomes harder for them to advance their issues in the workplaces. Then it becomes even worse, and so one is inside that negative spiral.

I believe that the LO unions, but also the TCO unions and other trade unions, have a lesson to learn. One needs to ensure that one delivers for its members, whether it concerns working hours, other conditions, or wages; it can probably apply to all those areas. I believe that one really needs to see how we can best deliver for our members. How can we make our members' lives better? How can we ensure that they notice they are getting better in their everyday lives through their membership in a trade union?

I believe, as I have said, that the LO unions need to consider how they can do this. I really hope that they will do so and come to wise conclusions.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

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

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this speech by addressing all of Sweden's entrepreneurs directly. To you, I want to say: A big thank you for everything that you contribute!

In this chamber, I have all too often heard Sweden's entrepreneurs mentioned with a negative connotation, as if they were anonymous entities and profit machines to be curbed. But do you know – behind every company, there is actually a human being. It could be someone who has not received a job and created their own, perhaps even for others – someone who has dared to take a risk and who has invested time, effort, and money, sometimes their entire and perhaps their family's savings, someone who has wanted to create something new, something better, something more.

More than half of all employees in Sweden work in small and medium-sized enterprises. It is in these companies across the entire country, from rural areas to large cities, that jobs are created. It is these entrepreneurs, employers, people who drive Sweden forward. So once again: Thank you! Sweden is nothing without you.

Sweden's labor market faces major and constant changes, but together we have created a system that is capable of meeting these challenges. In recent years, the parties have reached historic agreements that have modernized and improved labor law.

Through the new main agreement and the subsequent legislation, we have obtained a strengthened transition study support where those in employment can actually study with up to 80 percent of their salary. Full-time should be the norm. This has been clarified in the Employment Protection Act. Regarding faster transition to permanent employment in fixed-term employments, the conditions have been strengthened, and the right of priority for re-employment has been strengthened. Expanded exceptions from the seniority rules have also been introduced, which has been very important specifically for small business owners to be able to retain important competence.

These are concrete improvements that have been developed through negotiation and accountability. It shows that Sweden's model works. It is not obvious. There are few nations that have succeeded with this balancing act.

While other countries are plagued by extensive labor conflicts and uncertainty, we have built a labor market where wages develop in a balanced way and conflicts are rare. Both companies and employees know what the rules are.

But despite this, it seems as if the Social Democrats are prepared to abandon the model if the parties do not do as they say and implement a reduction in working hours. They want, therefore, that politics should dictate the terms for the parties in individual issues. At least prominent Social Democrats are threatening legislation if they do not get what they want. This risks destroying the foundation of the model that has served the Swedish labor market well for decades.

When it comes to the reduction of working hours, many questions are raised. How is a 30-hour week with maintained pay supposed to work in practice? And how is the reform to be financed?

To claim that fewer hours can be compensated for by increased productivity is unrealistic. Should an already pressured home care service take care of even more elderly people per hour? How so, I wonder. Should the elderly chew faster or just shower half their bodies? Should teachers be responsible for even more students in their classrooms?

That this could be solved by hiring more people is also not realistic. For the first, there is already a major staff shortage today, and it is difficult to find competence to hire. Who is going to cover these hours? For the second, calculations show that a general reduction in working hours with maintained wages implies increased costs of up to hundreds of billions in socio-economic impact annually. For the public sector, it would mean tens of billions in increased wage costs.

On top of this, the Social Democrats promise to abolish the quarantine day. They have themselves estimated that the cost amounts to 5 billion kronor annually. Svenskt Näringsliv assesses that the actual cost for employers and the public sector could amount to 10–15 billion annually.

But despite the costs of this election promise, no funding for this has been reported either in this year's budget or in any other way. It is easy to promise more free time, but to promise costly reforms without simultaneously talking about how they will be paid for – that is to say, what must be opted out or which taxes must be raised so that the reform can be implemented – is not honest. Voters have the right to know how the reform will be financed so that they can form their own opinion.

The Moderates have no view on whether the working time should be 30 hours or 40 hours. It should be up to the parties in the labor market to reach an agreement on this. The absolute majority do not have 40 hours of working time in their agreements today either. The average is 35 hours, and some have as little as 32 hours. This is a clear sign that the parties' model works. The parties have already adjusted the working time where it has been possible.

The Swedish model has built our prosperity through responsible negotiations, and the government has implemented reforms that strengthen both security and flexibility. We Moderates stand firm by the parties' model, and we stand firm that Sweden is built strong through work and entrepreneurship.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I became active in SSU once upon a time, the Moderates had election posters where it said "Moderaterna – Sveriges nya arbetarparti" or "Sveriges enda arbetarparti". If that slogan was not already dead, Member Lindberg executed it in his speech today.

She spent eight minutes talking about Social Democratic policy and about the conditions for entrepreneurs, companies, and employers. There was not a word about how the Moderates and the government want to make Sweden better for hard-working people.

One wants to use labor law to strengthen people's position in the workplace and make work life more bearable – to ensure that people get a better everyday life in their work life, quite simply. She spent eight minutes criticizing straw men about the Social Democrats and acting as a representative for the employers' interests.

I really hope that the wage earners who watch the debate either live or afterwards listen carefully to what MP Frost Lindberg said. I could not find a single proposal that would make life better for ordinary wage earners. Furthermore, the MP managed to launch an attack against the proposal to abolish the quarantine day – I assume she means the quarantine deduction. It would actually make life better for very many wage earners.

Furthermore, we were given a lesson in economics from a representative of a party that has run the state's finances with a deficit of over 300 billion. I thank you for that explanation!

In eight minutes, the member could therefore not tell us about any reforms to make life, especially working life, better for ordinary people. Therefore, I want to hear a bit more about that, so I give the member the opportunity to develop those thoughts – not in eight minutes, but in two.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I think the Member perhaps did not listen to the entire speech, because I also mentioned several of the things that have improved for workers. We have introduced strengthened transition study support. That full-time work should be the norm has been clarified in the Employment Protection Act. We have introduced a faster transition to permanent employment for fixed-term employment. The right of priority for re-employment has also been improved.

In my speech, I counted some examples of how the legislation has been improved. Then I stated that I personally do not recognize myself in the Social Democrats' description that it is terrible to be a worker and that companies are greedy entities that only exploit the workforce.

I have myself worked in almost all industries, both with simpler and with more qualified work tasks. I have been well received and well treated. I turn against the description of the employers that is being made.

The majority of those who are employed in Sweden are employed in small and medium-sized companies. These are people who have started these companies. That a company grows is not synonymous with the entrepreneur losing good basic values. I turn against that image based on my own experiences in almost all industries.

The reality for entrepreneurs is that they, to a very large extent, take a fairly low salary themselves but work seven days a week and late into the evenings. They are very concerned about their staff.

The members of the committee were thus given some examples. In addition, we have also strengthened many opportunities in the labor market to increase one's competence and obtain more options as an employee. These are just some of the parts we have worked on.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that the member mentioned the transition study support, which was indeed pushed through by a Social Democratic government during the previous term. But when one is in pain over one's own reforms, one tries to take credit for reforms that have been made by other governments as well. I can, in itself, have some sympathy for that.

I also note that the member continues with their straw men. If the member had views on the speech I gave from the rostrum, the member would have been free to request a reply to it. Then we could have discussed that speech then instead of bringing it up in this exchange of replies.

If the member thought I was all too diabolical in my rhetoric towards individual employers, that was not my intention. My intention was to show that I see serious tendencies towards a deterioration of working life for quite a few wage earners across Sweden.

The chairman also spoke in his address about the reduction of working hours. I want to be clear once again that the Social Democrats' position is that this is best resolved by the parties. It is clearly stated in our congress decision, and that is the main line. It shall be resolved by the parties.

It sounded to the member as if there is a split within the government base, as the Sweden Democrat member seemed to have a different starting point on the issue. The Moderate member seems to be more dismissive, even though she opened up at the end to the possibility that some kind of agreement between the parties could be accepted.

I take this opportunity to clarify that the Social Democrats' view is that the issue of shortening working hours is best resolved by the parties. If one hesitates, there is every possibility to read the congress decisions that we made at the congress in Gothenburg in May 2025.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the clarification. Since leading Social Democrats are very outspoken on the issue of shortening working hours and explicitly threaten legislation if the parties do not reach an agreement, it is very good that we get a clarification on where the Social Democrats stand on the issue, so that no voter is misled into thinking that this will happen automatically if the Social Democrats come into government. So that is obviously not the case.

I thank you for the clarification and hope that the Social Democrats as an organization can perhaps unite around a slightly more uniform communication.

I want to ask a question, now that we are talking about caring for the workers. Why has it not been discussed how the abolition of the care deduction is to be financed? I know the member has no further reply, but I am sending the question to the Socialdemokraterna. I simply do not think it is honest to announce such a large reform – it is, therefore, 5 billion, almost as much as the entire equality budget – without saying how it is to be financed. It is mentioned in the budget, but it has not been said how it is to be financed or reported in any other way.

If one is serious about their proposals, which are then intended to benefit workers, I think it is reasonable that one speaks about how they shall be financed. What should be deprioritized, or which taxes should be raised? If one as a voter does not receive clear consequence descriptions, one actually cannot form one's own opinion on what one thinks about political proposals. The member knows just as well as I do that resources have a certain limitation and that everything that is paid for in the budget must be financed.

I submit to the member that it would be honorable to provide a clarification for the voters on how this is to be financed.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! This report concerns me very much. There are very many things I would like to bring up, but I will really try to stay within the time limit.

I want to start by moving for approval of reservation number 18, so that I do not forget it.

The Swedish labor market model is based on a very simple principle. The one who works shall have rights, and the one who leads and distributes the work shall take responsibility.

Today it is so – as you have heard me say many times earlier in the speaker's chair – that the principle is eroded in the gig economy, that is to say the platform economy. The platform companies still claim that they are not employers, and platform workers are classified as self-employed. This results in that people in practice are completely dependent on a platform for their income, their work shifts, their ratings and their future.

This also very often means that one loses sick pay, occupational injury insurance, occupational pension, and employment protection. It obviously means that it is very difficult to build up a trade union organization, because the trade unions are structured so that one must be employed and have an employer.

At the EU level, this issue has been addressed through the platform directive. In the original proposal, there was a very clear employment presumption that would apply in all member states. It was a very important principle: equal conditions for platform workers throughout the union.

But unfortunately, in the final version, after the proposal has gone through all the different instances, the responsibility has been placed on the individual member states. This means that the conditions can be improved in some countries but not in others. It is a very unfortunate development. Working conditions simply cannot be a patchwork that depends on which national political will prevails at any given moment. The internal market must not become an arena for social dumping.

I view the investigation proposals presented in the report absolutely positively. But I do not share the committee's conclusion that we should wait and see what happens, because the situation for many of the platform workers is already unacceptable today. Much legislation should be put in place quickly.

I shall mention a few things. We should introduce national legislation that clarifies that platform companies are employers when they practically exercise management. We must ensure that platform workers are classified as employees when the dependency relationship is clear. I can give a simple example: If someone is traveling around with a company logo on them, it should be clear that it is that company that is your employer.

Technological development must not become an excuse to roll back workers' rights a hundred years back in time. It is not innovation and digitalization that is the problem. It can simplify and improve very much. The problem arises when the business model is based on precisely avoiding and bypassing responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker! It is time for my annual talk on the reduction of working hours. I have spoken about it for eight years, and I will never stop doing so.

If one is to have a serious discussion about the reduction of working hours, one must start with the facts. How much do people actually work in Sweden? The answer is: a lot.

One can look at actually worked time – one then subtracts absence. In Sweden, people between 15 and 74 years old work more than in the eleven European countries that are most often used in various comparisons. We also have very many people who work. We have one of the world's highest employment rates. This is obviously due to the fact that women also work in Sweden, and they have a high employment rate. They also remain in the workforce for a long time.

We in Sweden do not have more red days than others. The number of public holidays in Europe varies between 9 and 15 per year. In Sweden, we have 11. We also do not have more vacation days than most countries. The minimum level in the EU is 20 days, and we have 25.

It is not the case that we are already working a little too little – on the contrary. Sweden is truly a country where people work a lot, for a long time, and often full-time.

Mr. Speaker! When productivity increases, a choice always arises. Either one takes it out in higher profits and increased capital income, or one uses it to improve people's living conditions.

The eight-hour day that we have did not come of itself. It was obviously a result of organizing and political struggle. The same is true for holiday legislation, collective agreements, and social insurance. Every step towards shorter working hours has been met with the same objections: It is too expensive. It threatens competitiveness. It is not possible. How are we going to find people? The arguments from the 1800s until now have always been the same. Yet, it has always been possible to reduce working hours.

Today, the question is rather how the next step should be taken.

Costs, productivity gains and so on will always vary between different industries and between companies within the same industry. If the reduction of working hours is to be left entirely to industry-specific negotiations, many groups risk paying a much higher price. They may be forced to forgo wage increases or accept worsened conditions, while others with greater conflict power and higher levels of organization can achieve better outcomes. It truly risks increasing inequality between wage earners.

That is why I mean that we need a solidarity working time policy based on the same basic principle as the solidarity wage policy: that productivity gains shall be distributed fairly and that the wage room is coordinated nationally through the so-called "märket" (the mark). In the same way, a reduction in working hours should occur equally and with the same "price tag" for everyone, regardless of where the gains have arisen. Reduction in working hours cannot depend on the profitability of individual industries, the conflict strength of individual unions, or the degree of trade union organization. It must be based on solidarity between wage earners.

As I have said, we live in a time where productivity will continue to increase. Digitalization, automation, technological development and so on mean that more value can be created in a shorter time. That is how it has been for over a hundred years. Yet we work just as much, or more, while the profits are concentrated among an ever smaller group of owners and the wealthy. It is neither fair nor particularly sustainable in the long term.

Reduction of working hours is not just about leisure time. It is about power over time, about the possibility of combining work with family life, recovery, and engagement in society. It is about reducing stress-related ill health and about sharing both work and productivity gains.

When we know that Sweden is one of the countries where people work the most, it is not radical to discuss shorter working hours – it is reasonable. The labor movement has always been at the forefront of social reforms. Now it is time to take the next step. It is a question of justice and sustainability and of what kind of society we want to build.

(Applause)

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have a labor market model where large parts of labor law are shaped through negotiations between the parties. Employers and employees agree together on terms and responsibilities, which creates both flexibility and predictability in working life. It is an order that has served Sweden well for a long time and which we should safeguard.

The role of politics is, of course, to set the framework for this, but within these frameworks, the parties need space to find the solutions themselves. When politicians keep an arm's length distance, it enables employer organizations and trade unions to negotiate agreements based on their respective needs and priorities. This is an important explanation for why Sweden has so few strikes and a fundamentally very stable labor market.

It is precisely thanks to this model that Sweden today has one of the world's most conflict-free labor markets. Nine out of ten employees are covered by collective agreements, a level that has remained stable since the mid-1990s. It is a testament not only to strong organizing but also to the parties' ability to take responsibility and find functioning solutions close to the operations. At the same time, it is important that collective agreements continue to be voluntary. Companies must be able to decide for themselves whether a collective agreement is the right path for them.

Mr. Speaker! If the parties in the labor market want to negotiate, for example, shorter working hours, that is a matter that belongs exactly there, at the negotiating table, close to the operations, where the knowledge of the workplace conditions actually exists. There are also such agreements between the parties within different industries where lower working hours are agreed upon. When politics want to legislate on shortening working hours, one risks breaking the balance that the model is built on.

Historically, reductions in working hours have been able to be implemented when productivity has increased so much that society has been able to afford it. Today, however, the situation is completely different. The increase in productivity in Sweden has decreased quite dramatically. Before the financial crisis in 2008, productivity increased by approximately 2.7 percent per year. After the crisis, it has only increased by approximately 1 percent per year, a third of previous levels. If politicians shorten the working hours and productivity does not increase at the same rate, the costs are shifted onto the companies, onto the welfare operations, or onto the taxpayers. It is neither responsible, sustainable, nor in line with the Swedish model.

Productivity growth is crucial for future real wage increases, the financing of welfare, increased prosperity, and an increased standard of living. That was also why the government in 2023 appointed a productivity commission with a mandate to analyze which factors affect growth and submit proposals to strengthen it, both in the business sector and in the public sector.

Different industries have different conditions and completely different realities. In many industries, it would mean that the same work must be performed in a shorter time, which entails a higher workload and more stress, or else the employer must hire more people, which may not be an economic possibility for everyone. The skills shortage that exists within certain industries can also be exacerbated. Different industries and operations look different, and this is something we should respect. The role of politics is to set the framework, not to micro-manage the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, work is more than an economic factor. It is community and empowerment. Therefore, it is crucial to create a society where both women and men can combine work and family life, where employers dare to hire, where people dare to change jobs and develop.

We want a labor law that combines security with flexibility, that encourages development and that enables companies to grow. We want rules that are clear but not suffocating. We want the labor market to be strengthened, not steered apart. The role of politics is to create good conditions, not to regulate in detail solutions that are best decided by those who live in the middle of reality. The parties in the labor market have for a long time shown that they can take responsibility. Let us continue to trust them!

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, with respect for the Swedish model and with consideration for the productivity development, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to Member Aydin for the speech!

Member Persson was in earlier, and I too would have gladly had an exchange of remarks with the member from the Liberals, the representative of the Minister for Employment's party. But now there is no member from the Liberals here, so I must take the opportunity to have an exchange of remarks with a representative from another government party.

The Chairman initially had a reasoning about the importance of collective agreements for maintaining the Swedish model and for safeguarding the progress that has been made on the Swedish labor market over the last nearly hundred years. It was a reasoning that I believe both I and large parts of the Social Democratic parliamentary group could agree with.

Then the member moved on to another line of reasoning, and at the end of that reasoning, he instead began to talk about the importance of voluntariness. When it was suddenly spoken of that one should be allowed to do a bit as one wishes, it felt as if what had been said before was somewhat hollow. That line of thought could indeed mean that the Swedish model that the member spoke so warmly about in the introduction falls. The argumentation becomes somewhat ambiguous.

I would therefore like to ask the member to elaborate on that reasoning. How does he think the two parts are to fit together?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I think it reflects the model, that is to say, that it relies heavily on agreements based on the parties' needs and priorities. Regarding the collective agreements, I also believe, as I mentioned, that many have joined because it has been a successful model. Many employer parties have probably wanted to sign collective agreements because it has served both the employers and the employees well, and this has created a stability in the labor market with, for example, few strikes and other types of industrial actions. I believe that has also made the model successful.

As I said in my speech, however, this is not something that politics should regulate in detail in different ways, but rather it should be left to the parties in the labor market to agree on it themselves. Then the companies can decide whether they want to enter into that type of collective agreement or reach an agreement in another way.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I share the member's view that the collective agreements have served both employers and employees well in this country. Had we not had the good collective agreement coverage we have had in Sweden and the – for lack of a better word – spirit of consensus, as well as the will to reach agreements, which in some sense has nevertheless prevailed, we would have had a much more conflict-ridden labor market. One only has to look back and see how it was in Sweden in the early 30s, and one sees how it could have been in Sweden for a long time to come if the parties had not succeeded in reaching an agreement.

I think, as I have said, that the member at the beginning presented an argument that I could agree with, but then it must again be noted that it should be based on some kind of voluntariness and that it should be up to the companies themselves to sign collective agreements. I agree that politics should not interfere and micro-manage, but from the political side, one can indeed state that one thinks it is good if as many as possible sign collective agreements.

I perceive it, however, as that the member is not willing to go that far. The member reasons that it is good with collective agreements but does not want to say that he thinks more companies should sign collective agreements. Instead, he still thinks that there should be some kind of voluntariness. I notice myself when I say it that the reasoning is a bit difficult to follow.

The member may perhaps clarify even a little more how he sees these two parameters going together, because as the member notices, I find it a bit difficult to understand how they are supposed to fit together. One speaks about the importance of many signing collective agreements but simultaneously presses, as I perceive it anyway, on the fact that companies should not have to sign collective agreements. The member is therefore welcome to elaborate on that further.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps it is the difference between the left-wing bloc and us conservatives: We believe that the companies want to do the right thing and what is good for both the business and for the employees, and therefore do what they judge to be best based on the business's circumstances.

I would say that the core of the Swedish model is that the parties negotiate and agree on terms and so on, based on their own circumstances. In this case, it has meant that many companies have judged that it is good to have collective agreements. It creates predictability, good terms, and perhaps also a stability in the labor market. Therefore, they should be able to do that, but it is not our role as politicians to try to steer in a certain direction or otherwise regulate in detail.

The parties, in this case many times the employers who have chosen to sign collective agreements, have taken their responsibility and are doing it in a good way, and we shall not interfere in that. That is the way that has been successful, and I think we should continue to safeguard that.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Labor law and working hours – it sounds technical, but at its core, it is about something much larger, namely the power over the labor market. Should the decisions be made here in the chamber or where the jobs actually are, that is to say between employers and employees?

For the Center Party, the answer is obvious: It is the parties who should negotiate the terms, and politics should keep an arm's length distance. It is entrepreneurs all over the country who create the jobs, not us. It is people who dare to invest, hire, and develop their businesses who ensure that there is a workplace to go to in the morning. Our task is to give them reasonable rules of the game, not to micro-manage their everyday lives.

Of course, there must be basic regulations, the right to strike, protection against unreasonable conditions, and clear frameworks for working hours, but that is also where the limit lies. Politics should set the rules of the game, not play the match. That is how we get more jobs that people can go to.

Mr. Speaker! The government has partially chosen a different path. The wage floor will be raised to almost 34,000 kronor for people who come here via labor migration. It may sound powerful and decisive, but in practice, it is actually to undermine businesses in parts of the country where the wage levels look different. It is to interfere in wage formation. It is to force employers to either raise wages for everyone or dismiss an employee that the business is dependent on.

Who is it then that is affected? Well, it is nursing assistants and the people who receive support from, for example, elderly care or health and medical care. It affects people who work and receive care in large parts of the country – not in Stockholm but in other parts of the country, such as Jämtland, Gotland and Kronoberg, where the median wage is significantly lower. This is not something to rely on the labor market parties for.

Mr. Speaker! The Government says it is about countering fraud, but fraud is not stopped by punishing serious companies. Fraud is stopped through controls, through follow-up, and by striking at those who do wrong – not at those who do right.

Mr. Speaker! We also hear demands to legislate on reduced full-time equivalents, that is, shorter working hours through political decisions. The Centre Party says no, not because we are against better working conditions but because we believe in the Swedish model. Already today, we see different full-time equivalents in different industries. Those who work office hours have one measure, and those who work in health and medical care often have another. It is the result of negotiations between the parties.

That is exactly how it should work. After all, not all industries have the same conditions, and not all companies have the same margins. Think of the small company with one or two employees. If working hours are reduced by law but there is no economy or people to hire, what happens then? Yes, either costs increase or the entrepreneur themselves has to work even more. After an already ten-hour long workday, the entrepreneur has to work a bit more. In the long run, this implies a risk that companies will be shut down, and the question is whether it would really be a victory for the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! To safeguard the Swedish model is not conservative; it is to defend a system that has functioned well. And let me be clear: A company without a collective agreement is not automatically unserious, just as a company with a collective agreement is not automatically flawless. It is the actions that decide – the responsibility and how one treats their employees.

Mr. Speaker! The labor market works best when responsibility and freedom go hand in hand, when politics sets frameworks but trusts people, and when we encourage entrepreneurship – do not make it suspicious. The Centre Party will continue to stand up for the entrepreneurs, for flexibility, and for the Swedish model. That is how we create more jobs that people can go to, which in turn leads to a stronger Sweden.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 15.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will devote my speaking time to two issues concerning the conditions of today's labor market: workers' privacy and the need for shorter working hours.

We see today a development where companies offer employers increasingly extensive tools for control and screening. Background checks can be necessary, and it is important to prevent crime and improper influence. I therefore welcome that the government is reviewing the regulatory framework and the possibility of expanded register checks for those who are to work with children and the elderly.

But we must also speak about when it goes too far. Today, it occurs that job seekers have their social media scrutinized without a clear connection to the position, that credit checks are taken on people applying for ordinary civil service jobs without financial responsibility, that extracts from the criminal record register are required for jobs despite a lack of legal basis, that drug tests are performed routinely without concrete suspicion, and that employees are monitored through detailed logging of emails, internet usage, or positioning via mobile phones.

The trade union Unionen has pointed out that extensive controls risk becoming improper and creating an imbalance between the employer and the employee. Safe workplaces must be a matter of course. Control measures can be both necessary and legitimate, but they must not become a routine. They must also not go further than what is justified by the needs of the operations.

We need clear frameworks that ensure that controls are necessary, proportionate, and relevant to the specific service. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants a comprehensive investigation into privacy in the workplace, with a mandate to develop a modern and coherent regulatory framework for employers' control and monitoring of employees. It should cover both digital tracking and software as well as camera surveillance, and it must be based on clear requirements for necessity, proportionality, and transparency. There is no contradiction between protecting operations and safeguarding personal privacy. It is a matter of the right balance.

The second question concerns the length of working hours. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the time has come for the next major reform in working life: a statutory reduction of working hours, step by step, with a view towards a four-day week. In many professions, not least within healthcare, school, and care, the burden today is so high that people are being worn out. Long shifts, high stress, and a lack of recovery lead to sick leaves and a shortage of skills.

When people cannot cope, it is not just an individual issue but also a societal problem. Experiences from many workplaces show that shorter working hours reduce sick leave and increase job satisfaction without a corresponding loss in productivity.

Reduction of working hours shall not occur overnight. Just like previous labor reforms, this shall be implemented gradually and in cooperation with the parties in the labor market.

Sweden is a wealthy country with strong productivity development. The question is how the gains should be used. Should they be taken out solely in increased profitability or also in more time? Time is not a luxury good but a prerequisite for a sustainable working life and a sustainable life.

Mr. Speaker! Both the issue of privacy and the issue of working hours are ultimately about balance in working life – about security without excessive control, about work without exhaustion, and about a working life where people are treated as responsible individuals and are not reduced to risk assessments or production factors. We believe that this is the balance that must characterize the future Swedish labor market.

With that said, I move for approval of reservation 4 and reservation 17.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 4 March.)

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