ILO Convention on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the Workplace and ILO Convention on a Safe and Healthy Working Environment

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by approving the committee's proposal and referring to the Sweden Democrats' special statement.

No person should have to go to work with anxiety in their stomach or be subjected to threats, harassment, violence or gross disrespect. The workplace shall be a place for work and safety. That is how it shall be in Sweden.

The questions being addressed today are important. But decisions in the chamber are not enough. The difference is only noticed when safety increases out in the workplaces. A safe and healthy working environment is now considered a fundamental right within the ILO. That shows the seriousness of the issue.

Mr. Speaker! I note that the government parties will not participate in the debate. It is regrettable and noteworthy. When the Riksdag deals with issues of safety at work, violence, and the work environment, the government side should be here to answer for its policy. It is part of the responsibility to participate in the debate.

Enough said about that. Let us return to reality. What does it look like?

Assistant nurses face threats and aggression. Shop employees are subjected to thefts, shouting, and violence. Drivers and train attendants face insecurity. Teachers are subjected to threats. Even civil servants face an increasingly harsh climate, and so on. Many go home with stress in their bodies. Many leave professions they actually want to stay in. This exacerbates the already existing shortage of staff in important operations.

This is not a question of individual incidents, but this is a question of a pattern. Respect has been weakened, and what was previously unthinkable has in many places become commonplace.

When order breaks down in society, the problems follow into the workplaces. Convention No. 190 applies not only to permanent employees but also, for example, to interns, apprentices, and job seekers. The protection also applies to work-related situations, for example, travel to and from work. This shows how broadly these issues affect people in working life.

Sweden already has laws in the area through, among others, the Work Environment Act, the Discrimination Act, and the Penal Code. The problem therefore is not only about what is written in the law but also about whether the protection works in practice. Significantly more is required there than today.

The opposition places great emphasis on several formulations in the law. We Sweden Democrats believe that the legal text is important, but it is also required that rules are followed up and that the measures are noticeable in people's everyday lives.

The person who stands alone in a store, works night shifts in healthcare, or drives a bus through unsafe areas needs more than words and documents. One needs a society that functions. Furthermore, it is the case that many of the professions where threats, stress, and high workload are most common are often carried out by women.

The Sweden Democrats have a clear line. We stand on the side of the hardworking person. The one who works, pays tax and keeps Sweden running should feel that society stands behind her or him. The one who threatens, harasses or uses violence shall be met with clear consequences.

Employers must act immediately, take the warning signs seriously and support the one who is being subjected to it. For too long, far too many have been told to endure a bit more, wait a bit longer and understand the one who crosses the line. That attitude has failed far too many employees.

Mr. Speaker! A good working environment is not created through formulations. It is created through leadership, presence, and clear boundaries between right and wrong. It is created when employers act early, when crimes have consequences, and when the person affected knows that society stands by his or her side.

We also know what failures cost. They cost in sick leaves, staff turnover, lost competence, poorer service, and increased pressure on those who remain. Sick leaves linked to stress and mental ill-health are already a heavy societal problem. The price is paid every day by workers, families, and employers.

The Sweden Democrats are not satisfied with today's decision passing the chamber. Now, sharper accountability, better follow-up, and improvements that are noticeable in everyday life are required.

Sweden does not need more symbols. Sweden needs real results.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is simple. Swedish workplaces shall be characterized by safety, order, and respect. The person who works shall be able to focus on their job, not on their fear. The person who does right shall feel support. The person who destroys for others shall face consequences.

Mr. Speaker! It is not much to ask, but it is the least one can demand in Sweden. That being said, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Violence and harassment in our workplaces is a major and many times growing problem. According to the Swedish Work Environment Authority's surveys, 14 percent of those employed state that they have been subjected to threats and violence at work during the last year. Among young women, it is every fourth.

Reports and headlines tell us what reality looks like in many workplaces, about waitresses who have to endure sexual harassment from guests, about ambulance and shop staff, who have even been murdered, and about nursing assistants who are abused. Threats, violence, and harassment have become commonplace in far too many professions. Within health and social care, one in three employees has been subjected to it, and the levels are high also within, among others, school and social services.

That people go to work and risk being subjected to violence and harassment is completely unacceptable, but it is an everyday reality for far too many. It is not solely about the work environment and safety. When employees are threatened, trust in society is also affected.

Mr. Speaker! Arbetsmiljöverket, the unions and the safety representatives repeatedly point to factors that increase the risk of vulnerability: lack of risk assessments, poor induction and training, understaffing and lone work in risky situations, and employers who do not take their responsibility fully.

Mr. Speaker! We have this debate today because the government, after much back and forth, has finally presented a bill to ratify the International Labour Organization's convention number 190, on the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace, and convention 191, on a safe and healthy working environment. It is an important decision. We Social Democrats welcome that Sweden is now joining ILO 190. We have pushed for it for several years.

When the investigation underlying the bill was presented, there was a clear basis, and it would have been completely unproblematic to submit the bill as early as 2022. But it has taken time.

It has been difficult to get answers as to why it has been delayed. All answers have been evasive. But not as evasive as today, when not a single representative for the government parties is participating in the debate. We are talking about violence and harassment in the workplace, something that affects hundreds of thousands of people every year. That one does not take the debate, does not defend their policy, and does not answer questions says something about the priorities. Questions about people's safety at work deserve more than silence from the government parties.

Mr. Speaker! A ratification is important. It shows that we do not accept violence and harassment in working life, but it does not change the reality itself. Sweden already fulfills the convention's requirements in large parts. Nevertheless, people all around our workplaces are subjected daily to harassment, threats, and violence. It shows that the problem is not only the legislation but also how it functions in practice.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, a ratification is not enough. The preventive work on the work environment must be strengthened, the risk assessments must become better, and measures must be implemented when the risks that exist have been identified. Knowledge of how threats, violence, and harassment are prevented needs to increase, both among employers and among the employees. The protection against threats and harassment from customers and users must become stronger, and in that part, the employer's responsibility must be clarified.

Mr. Speaker! Working alone is a clear risk factor. In many of the most vulnerable industries, people work alone. This makes workers more vulnerable. It increases both insecurity and the risk of being subjected to violence. Therefore, we Social Democrats have proposed that working alone should be restricted in operations and situations where the risk of threats and violence is particularly high.

The Government makes the assessment in the bill that Swedish law already fulfills the convention's requirements. But in the investigation that forms the basis for the bill, there are proposals that the legislation should be strengthened through a clarification in the Work Environment Act that the work environment shall be free from violence and harassment. It is a limited but important clarification.

LO, TCO and Saco stood behind such a proposal, but the government chose not to proceed. It is regrettable. We want the government to return to the Riksdag with such a clarification. Therefore, I move for approval of the reservation.

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the aforementioned trade union central organizations – LO, TCO and Saco – wrote a joint debate article in Altinget where they welcome that Sweden is now on its way to ratifying ILO Convention 190. But they are very clear that more is required to reduce vulnerability. They want the government, like I recently demanded, to establish in the Work Environment Act everyone's right to a working life free from violence and harassment.

They want the rules on harassment and threats and violence to be updated so that they are adapted to the risks in today's working life. They also want the protection to be strengthened against threats and violence from outsiders, such as customers, patients and users. These are clear demands from the entire trade union movement and largely the same demands that I have highlighted here in the chamber today.

Mr. Speaker! Ratifying the convention is, as has been said, an important step, but it is not enough. If we want to reduce violence and harassment in the workplace, more is required: stronger preventive work, more knowledge, clearer accountability, stricter requirements, and better control.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Here we sit, a few brave souls in the chamber, to discuss the Committee on Employment's report on approving the ILO conventions on the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace. We in Vänsterpartiet want to be clear: it is not enough to say things on paper – it must also be noticeable in people's everyday lives.

ILO Convention No. 190 establishes something that should obviously be self-evident: that all people have the right to a world of work free from violence and harassment. It covers not only employees but also interns, job seekers, and others who are in the sphere of work life. It also clarifies that violence and harassment can occur in many different contexts: at the workplace, during business trips, or on the way to and from work.

Mr. Speaker! This is not a theoretical question. For far too many people in Sweden, threats, harassment, and sometimes outright violence are today a part of the everyday work life. This applies in particular in welfare professions, in retail, in the transport sector, and for very many public employees. It also affects women to a greater extent, especially in contact professions where one meets people in vulnerable situations.

We know that this has consequences. We know that people become ill and leave their jobs. In the worst case, they adapt their decisions or their response out of fear of threats and reprisals. This is not just a workplace environment problem but actually also a democracy problem.

Therefore, I and the Left Party welcome that Sweden is now joining the convention. It sends a very important signal, both nationally and internationally, that violence and harassment in working life is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I and the Left Party believe that the government is content with just signals. The majority of the committee, which is not in the chamber today, refers to the fact that Swedish legislation already fulfills the convention's requirements and that no further measures were needed. But that reasoning, I believe, ignores the reality in the workplaces. That legislation exists does not mean that the protection is sufficiently strong in practice.

That is also why the investigation behind the bill proposed a concrete clarification in the Work Environment Act: that the work environment shall, as far as possible, be free from violence and harassment. Such an addition would not only have been symbolic; it would have clarified the employer's responsibility and strengthened the preventive work.

Mr. Speaker! This is precisely what is also the core of the Left Party's position. We do not want to stop at stating that the problems exist, but we also want to address them. For us, it is a fundamental principle that all people have the right to a working life free from harassment and violence. It is not an ambition; it is a right. In the same way, a safe and healthy working environment is not something one can compromise on depending on the industry or form of employment; it is also a matter of course.

This means that the work environment policy must be offensive. Employers must take clear responsibility for preventing risks. The position of safety representatives must be strengthened. And the legislation must be so clear that there is no doubt about what applies.

We also mean that the protection against violence and harassment from third parties – that is, persons outside the workplace – needs to be strengthened. For many of the most vulnerable occupational groups, it is precisely there that the threats arise.

Mr. Speaker! Ratifying the ILO conventions is a very important step. But it must not be the final point. It must be the starting point for an even more ambitious work. We cannot accept that people go to work with stress, anxiety, and a lump in their stomach. We cannot accept that threats and harassment are normalized. And we cannot accept that politics settles for saying that it is already enough.

That is why Vänsterpartiet supports the reservation to clarify the Work Environment Act. We believe that clearer legal support is needed here and now – not at some point in the future, if it turns out to be justified.

Mr. Speaker! I have several times in my speech pointed out that the government representatives are not in the chamber. It also sends a very clear signal that the government is not particularly interested in work environment work. It is not important for this government to ensure that people feel safe at the workplace. It shows with all clarity that this government does not at all consider legislation for people to feel safe at work to be an important issue. This is worth noting.

In conclusion: Working life should not be a place of fear. It should be a place of security, dignity, and respect. This is also something that permeates the Left Party's entire labor market policy.

A clarification, once again: I move for approval of the reservation in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 6 May.)

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