Some additions and clarifications in the new law on unemployment insurance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned additions and clarifications in the new law on unemployment insurance. S argued that the government and SD are not showing up to discuss the only reform within the labor market during the mandate period 1. S criticized that the government has not addressed deficiencies regarding equality and compensation periods, and claimed that the deteriorations harm both the individual and society 1. V argued that the government does not want to address criticism of the quickly processed bill 2. V claimed that the law is class politics that favors high-income earners at the expense of low-paid workers, which increases the gaps 2. V advocated for a time-based insurance where every hour counts equally regardless of salary 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are here to debate the first adjustments in the new a-kassan, which, funnily enough, enter into force just today.
What is not as funny is that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats do not care to be here and discuss the only reform they carry out within the labor market area during the entire mandate period. I think that is remarkable. I would say it is telling that they do not show up.
Labor market policy has during this mandate period been something they can finance their tax cuts with, and the result of this prioritization we see clearly: more unemployed, fewer in labor market training and a social construction that has stalled.
Now, that is not quite what we are here to debate, Mr. Speaker, but since the interest is so low, I think it is appropriate to point it out.
As said, the government, even before the new unemployment insurance fund comes into force, submitted the bill that we now have before us in the chamber and which was needed to rectify errors in the original bill. This would have been a golden opportunity to rectify the problems that we pointed out already when the previous bill was submitted, for example the lack of analysis of the effects regarding gender equality, different age groups, those who have an income insurance through the union and the removal of the longer compensation period for parents with children at home.
None of this has been done. The government is obviously not interested in what effects their deteriorations have for people in Sweden. Now the insurance protection for both the individual and society is being worsened.
Let me be clear: unemployment is a poison for society, but it is not the unemployed who secrete it. It is not the construction workers, the retail employees, and the healthcare staff who have become unemployed recently who are the problem. They are affected by it, and the government and Sverigedemokraterna do not miss a single chance to talk about them as if they are lazy and lack their own drive to get a job. The only thing offered is lower benefits to motivate people to do a little more, regardless of what they are already doing.
People want to work, but in longer economic downturns or crises, such as the pandemic we have just gone through, it is not possible for everyone who loses their job to quickly get a new one. When there are hundreds of applicants for every position, some will not get the job, "strangely" enough. Then the insurance that one has paid into must be there until the economy turns or the crisis is over for everyone. Anything else is a betrayal of all the hard-working Swedes who expect that their insurance will enable them to keep the house, the boat, or the car until they find a new job.
The A-kassa fulfills several functions in society. It is a transition insurance for the individual. That is perhaps the only way the right-wing parties see it, and there we can agree. It is that, but it is also a basis for our society as a whole and for our wage formation in particular.
Unemployment insurance keeps demand up when we have a recession, and it keeps wages up for those who still have jobs. That is the reason why the right constantly attacks unemployment insurance when they have the chance. The Bildt government tried in the 90s but did not succeed because they botched the economy so fatally that they were forced to call in the Social Democrats to get out of the problems. Then they were forced to back down, and thanks to that, the crisis did not become as deep as it could have been with an unemployment insurance of the model we have now.
Similarly, the Alliance government did when it took office in 2006. They worsened the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) in order to push down wage formation. This was done by increasing the fees and setting them in parity with how high the unemployment was in each industry. This was done with full awareness that it would lower what is called reservation wages, press wages down across the entire labor market, and also hit hard against the organization of the labor market. That was, so to speak, the whole point. By pushing up the fees for all members, the trade union movement would be forced to agree to lower wage increases. The workers who were unemployed would be encouraged to take jobs with lower wages by pressing down the compensation as quickly as possible.
Now this government is doing the same thing, though on a smaller scale, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna.
But the unemployment insurance fund is also a cyclical instrument. A sensible unemployment insurance fund for everyone who becomes unemployed in a cyclical downturn or a structural transformation in the labor market, such as when entire industries disappear in favor of something new, ensures that the economy can continue to run smoothly. It is important for all of us. When purchasing power does not decrease as much, trade and other sectors in society do not need to be hit and dragged down in the crash. We can therefore avoid the economy falling into a domino situation where the first tile that falls also knocks down the next and the next and the next.
Madam Speaker! We saw, as I said earlier, both in the 1990s and in the crisis of 2008–2009 and also during the pandemic how important this could be. One of the state's most important tasks is to counter economic downturns and keep purchasing power up so that the domestic economy is not affected. A well-functioning and reasonably high unemployment insurance handles that matter without politics having to make quick decisions when things happen. It is faster, it is more predictable, and it creates security for both the individual and society. It is therefore of the greatest interest for both employees and the public sector, and for all those entrepreneurs who make a living from services or selling goods to individuals, that this system is robust.
Madam Speaker! Swedish wage formation has functioned extraordinarily well in an international context precisely because we have stable, strong and responsible actors who negotiate the terms in each industry individually and a policy that keeps a reasonable distance. Common starting points become in Sweden adapted terms and wages that are equivalent but not exactly the same in all industries.
The A-kassa is part of keeping wages up and part of what is called wage protection on the labor market. None of us who work in Sweden want wages to start being pressed down when more and more people become unemployed. We want our wages to hold over time, even when the economy goes down or when a bubble bursts. The retailers, the craftsmen, and most other companies want that too – yes, quite simply everyone who is dependent on the domestic economy.
Despite this, the right repeatedly proceeds with deteriorations of precisely that protection for the economy and the individual that we all depend on, and they do not even have the courage to stand here in the chamber and debate the matter. That, Madam Speaker, I think is damnably low.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate some additions and clarifications in the new law on unemployment insurance, but there will not be much of a debate since no government representative has deigned to come to the chamber. I cannot interpret it in any other way than that the government, on the very day the new a-kassan enters into force, does not want to be here and address the criticism that exists against the new a-kassan and the shortcomings that exist in a legislative proposal that has been processed far too quickly.
Madam Speaker! The additions and changes proposed here do not correct the fundamental injustice that the right – that is, the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna – have built into this construction, because this is about class politics. The government has created an unemployment insurance where it is faster to qualify if you have a high salary. The more you earn, the faster you get security. The lower salary you have, the longer you have to wait. What does that mean in practice? Well, it obviously means that an engineer or a bank clerk qualifies quickly while the nursing assistant, the bus driver, the healthcare assistant, and the shop employee have to stand in line. Those who already live on tight margins and who are already struggling to make ends meet get the least security of all. This is nothing other than a fast track for the rich – an order where high-income earners are rewarded while ordinary people are punished.
This, Madam Speaker, is not just my analysis. LO has long pointed out that the government is eroding the insurance. They warn that it will become yet another system that splits instead of holding together. Kommunal says that their members, nursing assistants and practical nurses, risk being left without sufficient security when the assignments arrive. Handels highlights that part-time working women in shops, who already have difficulty meeting the requirements, will find it even harder with the government's construction.
Madam Speaker! This is about people who work evenings, weekends, and nights, about those who kept Sweden running during the pandemic, about those who do the heaviest work, often for the lowest wages. And how does the government thank them? With an assurance that says: No, you have to wait. You are not counted in quite the same way. You have to manage as best as you can.
This is a policy that increases the gaps. It is a policy that drives Sweden apart. It is a policy that we in Vänsterpartiet will never accept. We voted no to this law. We did so because we stand up for a time-based unemployment insurance where every hour counts equally regardless of what you earn. That is the only fair thing. It is the only thing that can create an insurance that is actually for everyone.
To the government, I want to say: You can continue to talk about the work line. You can continue to cast suspicion on people who become unemployed. But we in Vänsterpartiet will never accept an order where a high-paid official is protected first and the nursing assistant last. We will continue to push for an unemployment insurance that is solidary, that is fair and that is equal – an insurance that does not cement class differences but counteracts them.
Madam Speaker! Security in the labor market should not be a privilege for the well-paid. It should be a right for everyone.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.