Response to interpellation 2022/23:201 on measures against violence and harassment in the workplace
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns measures against violence and harassment in the workplace. L argues that it can never be accepted that anyone is harmed in their profession 1 and that threats against society-sustaining groups are an attack on democracy 1. L emphasizes that the justice system must intervene earlier 2 and that powerful reactions are an important preventive measure 3. L believes that employers must take greater responsibility 3 and that one must first ensure that existing regulations are followed 3. L argues that the government wants to go further than the previous government to reduce vulnerability 4. S argues that many injuries could be avoided with better risk assessments and training 5. S believes that both preventive and reactive measures are needed 6. S proposes a ban on solo work in client-facing contacts at youth homes 7 and argues that sanction fees can make employers take greater responsibility 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked what initiatives I am prepared to take to increase safety in our workplaces and reduce vulnerability to threats, violence, and harassment at work.
It can never be accepted that anyone dies or is injured as a result of their work. It is also unacceptable that people are subjected to threats, violence, or harassment because of their profession. That people whose task is to help and protect others in society are subjected to violence, threats, and harassment is, in the long run, an attack on democratic society.
This is a major issue that spans many areas within society, and it often concerns the actions of individuals who do not work at the workplace in question. Much is being done, and has been done, in this area. Several government inquiries have looked at aspects that have a connection to the issue of threats and violence directed at pillars of society.
To strengthen the criminal protection for central blue-light activities, the offense of sabotage against blue-light activity was introduced in 2020. It criminalizes attacking or otherwise disrupting police, rescue services, or ambulance medical care under certain conditions. The work to strengthen the protection for socially beneficial functions has continued since then. For example, an inquiry last year proposed that new offenses should be introduced for those who attack practitioners of certain socially beneficial functions, which the inquiry intends to include healthcare and medical personnel, social services personnel, rescue service personnel, and educational personnel within the school system (SOU 2022:2). The proposal means that such personnel shall receive corresponding strengthened criminal protection as, for example, police officers have today through the criminal provisions on violence or threats and assault against a public official. The proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
The report on the ILO Convention on violence and harassment in the workplace (SOU 2021:86) has been referred. From the responses of the referral bodies, it can be specifically noted that the Swedish ILO Committee shares the investigation's assessment that Swedish current law is compatible with ILO Convention number 190 and Recommendation number 206. The investigation's proposals are being prepared within the Government Offices.
The government's report to the Riksdag in connection with the Swedish National Audit Office's report Harassment, threats and violence - preventive measures and management at government agencies (RiR 2022:26) is being prepared within the Government Offices.
A special investigator was tasked in April 2022 to consider various constitutional changes to reduce public employees' vulnerability to violence, threats, and harassment (dir. 2022:31). The purpose is both to improve the situation for the employees and to safeguard public operations. The Government decided on 2 February 2023 to issue supplementary directives to the investigation (dir. 2023:16). The supplementary directives mainly mean that it is clarified that the investigator shall submit constitutional proposals that increase the protection for public employees. The assignment shall be reported by no later than 1 January 2024.
The Swedish Work Environment Authority has, as Johanna Haraldsson highlights in her interpellation, issued regulations on measures against violence and threats in the work environment (AFS 1993:2). Furthermore, there are regulations on how to promote a good work environment and prevent ill health due to organizational and social conditions in the work environment (AFS 2015:4). There are also regulations on how to conduct systematic work environment work (AFS 2001:1). These are regulations that are important to prevent situations involving violence, threats, and harassment from arising. How the work environment is organized is also important from a gender equality perspective.
Common to the aforementioned regulations is that it is the employer who is responsible for assessing the risks in the work in question and taking the measures that are needed. When it concerns state employees, the employer responsibility is delegated, and it is ultimately the heads of agencies who have the work environment responsibility for the employees. A systematic and preventive work environment work is the basis for a good work environment, and it is a natural part of the operations for all employers.
Employers carry out the daily work environment work at the individual workplaces together with the employees and their representatives. This involves regularly examining the working conditions and making risk assessments that are documented in action plans. Within the framework of cooperation between employers and employees, the work of the safety representatives fulfills an important function. The possibility of safety representative stops is, in turn, an important tool as a final measure to take when no other solution has been reached.
The Government views threats, violence, and harassment in the workplace with great seriousness. At the same time, I want to emphasize that a well-functioning systematic work environment management is the primary tool for countering threats, violence, and harassment related to work.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. Reports are repeatedly received of threats and violence within various professional groups. It is train conductors who have to endure being spat on, home care staff who are threatened with knives, and caregivers who are murdered. The National Audit Office has also noted that it is common for agency personnel to be subjected to threats, hate, and harassment.
Threats and violence are a problem on the Swedish labor market. Headline after headline bears witness to the situation: "After wave of violence: Bus drivers afraid to go to work", "Threats and violence make train conductors leave the profession", "Criticism of security after murder of LSS resident" and "Work Environment Authority issues alarm about threats and violence".
When violence and threats become news articles because a safety representative stops work or because someone actually comes to harm, it has gone too far. A representative for Kommunal told the newspaper Arbetet last week that since November, ten safety representative stops regarding threats and violence within home care and various residential facilities have been reported.
A safety representative's stop is not something done lightly, but rather it is something taken when one sees no other way than to stop the work in order to protect life and health. I am both pleased and upset when I hear about the safety representative's stops. I am pleased because the safety representatives take their responsibility, are active, act, and use the tools they have at their disposal. But I am upset when I realize that it is also a result of the employer not having taken their responsibility fully.
What many of these cases have in common is precisely that the employer has not done enough to prevent and preclude situations where employees are subjected to violence and threats. Safety representatives, the Work Environment Authority, and unions argue that many injuries could have been avoided with better risk assessment and better induction and training for employees, and perhaps by a ban on solitary work.
At work, the employer is responsible for your safety, and the employer shall organize the work and create conditions for a good working environment. Workplaces shall be designed and equipped to prevent risk of threats and violence as far as possible. The Swedish Work Environment Authority's regulations on threats and violence in the working environment apply to all workplaces.
The Minister says in his answer that systematic and preventive work environment work is the foundation of a good work environment. I cannot but agree. But then comes a statement that I am not as sure is true, namely that it is a natural part of the operations for all employers.
If it had been as the minister says in his answer, I am convinced that several of the work environment problems that we see today, not least with threats, violence and harassment, would not have been as common.
Many employers take their responsibility. They take this most seriously and do everything they can to create a good working environment, together with the employees, and prevent injuries and ill health. But it is also, I mean, obvious that we have far too many employers who do not do so.
Then I would like to add questions to this debate: In what way does the Minister believe we can get more employers to actually take their responsibility and prevent the risk of threats and violence at work? How are more of them to do this better?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I think it is an incredibly important issue that Johanna Haraldsson has raised here in the chamber. It is also an issue that I actually have personal experience of, in my previous professional role.
I feel a great deal of concern regarding this issue, because in my previous professional role, I have experienced that a shift in acceptance has occurred. I have sat in courtrooms and been met with gender-based insults and threats that have been uttered there. I have contact with police officers who have spoken about how it has been an everyday occurrence for them to be met with similar threats and harassment. We have a social service that is becoming more and more exposed, not least through the disinformation campaign that is currently underway against the social services, where it is claimed that they engage in the kidnapping of Muslim children. This is something that makes the problem increasingly acute.
There is also an equality aspect to this. As Minister for Equality, I would like to point out that last year we had a record number of women who died at work - nine of them. Of these, four were murdered. One of them was the woman who was murdered at the LSS residence mentioned in the interpellation. There were two female teachers who were killed at Malmö latinskola and one woman who was killed in Almedalen.
This must not escalate. We must take action. I am glad that there are ongoing investigations. We are following them closely. But I want to emphasize that actions are required from several different sides. We must ensure that Arbetsmiljöverket has the right tools to follow up on this, so that employers take exactly that occupational health responsibility that Johanna Haraldsson points out they have. That is one measure. We must also ensure that the justice system can intervene earlier and more clearly so that we stop the shift in acceptance. It is completely unreasonable that we should head towards this becoming a natural part of people's everyday lives at work for certain vulnerable occupational groups.
I will follow this issue closely and ensure that we cooperate across departmental boundaries to achieve the most effective protection possible for our employees in the Swedish labor market.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I truly agree that we need to have several measures prepared to address these problems. It is, of course, about intervening through the judicial system. Those are measures that we take in retrospect. When we work with the work environment, the preventive work is extremely important. We do not want to end up in a situation where people are actually subjected to violence, harassment, and threats at work.
As I mentioned in my previous post, many of the situations where people are subjected to violence at work could be avoided with better risk assessment and better induction and training for employees. Even working alone is a risk factor. It is particularly important that everyone in the workplace is aware of the risks and knows how to act in a threatening situation.
It is common for solitary work in many of the vulnerable occupational groups. Bus drivers, train attendants, home care staff, and even those in the occupational groups that the Minister enumerates work alone many times. And they almost always face the threats and violence completely alone. The feeling of vulnerability and insecurity then becomes even greater. Together with a colleague, you feel safer, and the risk is simply smaller that you will be subjected to such a situation.
In connection with the government's communication regarding incidents at Sis special youth home, which is to be debated here in April, we Social Democrats have submitted a follow-up motion. In that motion, we propose a ban on solo work in client-facing contacts at youth homes. We do this because experience shows that the work at these homes is so risky. It is a good way to create better safety for both staff and residents to completely phase out solo work in client-facing contacts at these homes.
When solitary work is such a major risk factor when it comes to threats and violence at work, how does the Minister see us getting more employers to reduce the risks for vulnerable occupational groups by stopping solitary work entirely or at certain times or work situations? Are there any such ambitions from the government?
Recurring criticism in connection with threats and violence at work is that risk assessments have not been carried out, that they are deficient, or that they do not result in any measures that actually reduce the vulnerability of the employees. I wonder how we can politically increase the motivation of those employers who, at the current time, do not do enough. I truly agree with the Minister that well-functioning and systematic work environment work is the primary tool to counteract threats, violence, and harassment at work. But when this does not work, when the knowledge is not there and, even worse, when the will is not there, how do we proceed then?
Today, Arbetsmiljöverket cannot decide on sanction fees for violations of the regulations on systematic work environment work or the regulations on organizational and social work environment, which the Minister also chooses to highlight in his answer as important for preventing threats and violence. On the other hand, Arbetsmiljöverket can do so if the employer violates regulations concerning, for example, machines or trucks. The physical risks remain, but work life is changing and other risks have had a greater impact on people's work lives, such as threats and violence.
The Minister has on his desk finished proposals that could make it possible for the Work Environment Authority to issue sanction fees linked to more regulations. I am convinced that this would increase the motivation of more employers to strengthen their work environment efforts. What does the Minister think? Will the Minister proceed with those proposals?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by commenting on what the interpellator said regarding the fact that the justice system's measures occur in retrospect and that we must focus on the preventive work. As I said initially, I feel a great concern for the shift in acceptance that is occurring, which has occurred and is ongoing, where threats and harassment have become so common that we no longer react to it.
I believe it is an important preventive measure that those who act in this way towards different professional categories face powerful reactions, so that we stop the shift in acceptance and it becomes very clear that there must be a complete zero tolerance towards that type of behavior against people who are just doing their jobs and who furthermore are in society-critical functions. I therefore see the measures that are underway within the justice system as incredibly important to stop this shift in acceptance. I also see it as important that employers take the responsibility they have to a greater extent. The greater the shift in acceptance becomes, the more accustomed we become and do not react to what is happening.
When it comes to questions regarding working alone, I share the interpellant's view that it is absolutely a very important issue. It is also the reason why there are often guidelines that certain occupational categories should not work alone. One problem we see, however, is that these regulations are not always followed. We can see that some of the acts of violence, even murders, that have occurred have occurred when women have worked alone despite there having been regulations that they should not work alone in these environments.
I therefore consider the first step to be ensuring that the regulations are actually followed. They are in place and must be followed. This is what I mean by step one to address that point.
When it comes to this matter regarding sanction fees, there is a report that has been referred, where the referral period expired in December. Work is ongoing at the Government Offices to prepare the matter based on the referral comments that have been received. I am following this work closely, but I cannot comment further on the investigation until the matter has been fully prepared. We will return regarding how we view the issue.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I am also convinced that we need to do several things, both preventive and reactive measures. It can actually lead to employers perhaps taking a greater responsibility, and the same applies to sanction fees linked to the various regulations. I look forward to following the government's work in developing these proposals.
The Social Democratic government also appointed an inquiry as a preparation for ratifying ILO Convention 190, which the minister also raises in his response, on the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace. The inquiry shows, just as the minister points out, no obstacles to Sweden signing the convention.
That Sweden joins the convention will obviously not mean that we will reach the root problem. A ratification does not stop the problem in workplaces, but it sends a clear signal from the Riksdag and the government that we take the issue seriously and have ambitions to strengthen the protection for everyone who works in vulnerable industries.
Sweden can be considered to fulfill the convention's requirements, as the investigation concludes, but that does not mean one can be satisfied. Preventing and countering violence and harassment in working life and ensuring that no one has to put their life at risk at work as a result of that violence requires more. It requires more both from the employers and from politics.
In my interpellation, I asked the question which initiatives the minister intends to take. I have not received very many reports on new initiatives, but I do not doubt the minister's commitment to the issues. But commitment is not worth much if it does not result in anything, and I truly hope that the government will take up the important proposals presented in several of the investigations that we Social Democrats commissioned.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the ILO convention on violence and harassment in the workplace, there is a report stating that Swedish law is compatible with the convention. The report also proposes a clarification in the Work Environment Act that the work environment shall be free from violence and harassment, that is, measures that go beyond the convention's requirements. This is something that, together with the views of the referral bodies, is being prepared in the Government Offices at this moment.
The ratification of the ILO convention itself is an issue that has fallen into a legal limbo at the EU level, and it is an issue that the Swedish presidency is now working to move forward in order to gain clarity on how we best handle it.
It is not true that there are no initiatives from this government's side. As I mentioned in my response to the interpellation, the government decided on February 2 this year to issue additional directives to the inquiry aimed at reducing public employees' vulnerability to violence, threats, and harassment. This government therefore wants to go further than the previous government when it comes to this issue. We will take it with the utmost seriousness.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the interpellor for this debate and for the opportunity we were given to raise this important issue in the chamber.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.