Response to interpellation 2022/23:331 on the reporting obligation for posted workers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the reporting obligation for posted workers and the combating of labor market crime. L wants the reporting obligation to remain as it is an important tool for combating labor market crime, ensuring workers' rights, and ensuring that cheating never becomes a competitive advantage 1 2 3. L believes that decisive action is required through agency cooperation, the establishment of akrim centers, and a review of confidentiality provisions to protect workers and ensure a good working environment 3. S wants a labor market where needs are determined through dialogue between parties 4. S believes that labor market crime is important to combat, that ministers should be able to discuss issues outside their own silos, and that exceptions in the legislation should be removed to eliminate loopholes 5 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)
Mr. Speaker! Leif Nysmed has asked me whether I will work to ensure that the reporting requirement for posted workers remains in place.
First, I would like to thank Leif Nysmed for taking the initiative for a debate on these important issues here in the chamber. With my background as an operationally active prosecutor, I have myself experienced what work-life crime and organized crime can entail. It is important to remind ourselves what work-life crime is and what negative effects it has on our society.
This is an issue that is prioritized for the entire government. We are working together and on a broad front to achieve the paradigm shift that is truly needed for us to be able to reverse the development. It is also satisfying that there is, fundamentally, a broad consensus across party lines that it is a political priority to combat crime in the workplace and to limit the space for it.
In the interpellation, Leif Nysmed refers to negotiations on a coordination framework for social security. That is the Social Department's area of responsibility. I want to be clear that in this debate, I will stick to the questions that fall within my area of responsibility.
The Ministry of Employment is responsible for issues concerning the reporting obligation under the Posting of Workers Act, and these issues fall within my area of responsibility as a Minister. The regulatory framework implies an obligation for an employer who posts workers in Sweden to report this to the Swedish Work Environment Authority no later than when the worker begins the work. The answer to Leif Nysmed's specific question is that I will continue to work to ensure that this reporting obligation remains in place.
I want to be clear that cheating, regardless of the industry, must never become a competitive advantage. Therefore, I welcome this debate on how the government shall ensure that crime in the working life disappears from the Swedish labor market.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer. However, I am somewhat puzzled as to whether the answer aligns with the government's position. After I submitted my interpellation, it turned out that the Swedish presidency pushed forward a proposal to Coreper to, among other things, introduce exemptions for Business Trips and for Short Term Activities, i.e., for business trips and short-term postings.
A1-certificates are an important tool to be able to control that posted workers do not stand without social security benefits and compete out serious employees and companies by avoiding social security contributions.
Pleasantly enough, the presidency's proposal was voted down in Coreper at the end of April. But concern remains, especially from the construction industry as a whole in Europe. In a joint statement from both trade unions and employers' organizations in Europe, they warn of potential consequences of the proposal that the Swedish presidency submitted. These organizations write in the article that I referred to in my question that they wanted to meet with the Swedish government to prevent the proposal from being pushed through.
I wonder then: Has the government met with EFBWW, European Federation of Building and Woodworkers, or the employers' organization FIEC to listen to the criticism presented?
Since the proposal was nevertheless voted down in Coreper, I wonder if the Minister will work to ensure that the reporting obligation and the A1 certificates will remain from day one?
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! We all learn something here in life, which is great fun.
I also want to start by saying, as my colleague Leif Nysmed, that I am nevertheless pleased with the answer from the Minister for Equality which shows that these issues are being taken seriously.
This is a question that means a lot to me as someone who came to Sweden once upon a time – about 35 years ago, so it is prescribed. This puts the finger on things and matters when they become problematic.
When I came to Sweden, I was given the right to work on the same terms as a Swede. The problem with this nonsense on the Swedish labor market is that it does not only kill the Swedish labor market, but it is also completely decisive for how one as a Swede views us immigrants, precisely because it competes with lower wages. It cannot and should not be permitted in a country like Sweden, not to mention everything else that labor market crime entails.
Mr. Speaker! Just today I read an article about crime in the workplace in my local newspaper Nerikes Allehanda.
There, they write about what the border police say:
It is not uncommon for the border police to find people working under appalling conditions.
It is damn tragic and one feels distressed over how Swedish and European industries exploit people, says Ulrica Granberg, head of the border police section in Region Bergslagen.
It is not just about illegal labor but also about criminal economy.
It is, therefore, many dimensions within crime in the working life.
I have read the response from the Minister for Equality. We have also had previous debates, and I know that the Minister for Equality is very competent and knows what these issues are about.
I have read about villages in Moldova where children do not meet their parents because they work in Sweden or somewhere else in Europe. So it cannot be, and it should not be so. These people also hide in different ways, and they sleep at their workplaces. It is damn awful.
That is why I am a bit surprised by what the Minister says. I understand that the A1 issue is not the Minister's issue. But I really hope that for all our sakes, the Minister speaks with his colleagues and his colleague the Minister for Social Affairs about this problem that is being created. We want a common and good society here in Sweden where one competes with one's knowledge and not with low wages.
That is why the proposal from the Socialdemokraterna is that we should have a labor market where the need is determined by the parties in the labor market talking to each other and not unilaterally by the employer. It is something I truly hope the Minister takes to heart.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! I believe it is important to keep the different concepts separate. What falls within my area of responsibility is the reporting obligation that exists regarding the posting of workers who come to Sweden. The employer shall make a report to the Swedish Work Environment Authority so that we have a posting register. This is incredibly important, among other things, to combat crime in the workplace and so that the workers who come to Sweden shall receive the same labor law conditions and the same protection as other workers in Sweden, and so that unscrupulous companies shall not be able to compete with poorer working conditions by bringing in labor from other countries.
What is mentioned regarding A1 certificates concerns the reporting obligation regarding secondment according to the so-called 883 Regulation. The purpose of this is to determine which country's social security shall apply during the time that a seconded worker performs work in another country. In that case, the employer shall make a notification to the competent social security institution in the sending country. In Sweden, it is Försäkringskassan. What is mentioned regarding A1 certificates is therefore a part that concerns seconded workers, and it is that which concerns the 883 Regulation.
Under the Swedish presidency, the question of the 883 regulation is on the table, and I know that negotiations are ongoing. It does not fall within my area of responsibility but within Anna Tenje's area of responsibility. When it comes to what falls within my area of responsibility, that is, the posting directive and the Swedish regulatory framework concerning this, a tightening of the rules occurred in 2020. At that time, an exception for shorter postings was removed. There is also no plan whatsoever from this government to remove the reporting obligation, which we see as an important tool for us to have a high level for all employees on the Swedish labor market.
It is exactly as Member Begic says, namely that we have people in Sweden who work under, frankly, atrocious conditions. I have seen this as a prosecutor when I have worked with human trafficking cases, and I have seen that certain industries are particularly affected. There are people who work under such slave-like conditions that it constitutes human trafficking. In between, there is a large gray area of people who are exploited on the Swedish labor market and where companies obtain unhealthy competitive advantages. This is what this government is firmly determined to combat with full force. There is no shift in perspective here regarding how large this problem is. This will be prioritized by the Swedish government, and it is an important issue precisely when it comes to crime in the working life.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I can, however, state that the government in this case has difficulty keeping track of what is happening within the Government Offices - or alternatively, one is speaking with a divided tongue.
At the same time as you stand here, Paulina Brandberg, and speak about your fight against crime in the labor market and, in response to my question, answer directly to the point that you will work to ensure that the reporting obligation remains, the government is actually trying to push through the exemption from the reporting obligation for shorter secondments. This is strange, and it is truly worrying.
You say that this is not your area of responsibility, but we have asked questions about labor market policy to other ministers and then received answers from the Minister for Housing regarding labor market policy. This applies, for example, when we have talked about labor market assessment and it concerned the construction industry. In that case, the Minister for Housing was the most appropriate person to answer that question.
I still expect the ministers to find out the facts before they come here and can answer the questions we ask. The alternative is that one hands over the question to another minister who can answer it. It is, therefore, a bit worrying and noteworthy, I would like to say. But I leave that debate.
What answer should I take with me to those who are worried? What should I tell trade unions and employer organizations across Europe? This concerns everyone except svenska Byggföretagen, who have not signed the statement I referred to earlier. It is the only employer organization within the construction industry that has not done so. But what should I take with me to all those who are worried about this change?
Does the State Council know if there will be any new proposals before we hand over the presidency? If so, has one taken to heart the concern that the construction industry as a whole in all of Europe is trying to convey to the Swedish government, which is the chair?
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I signed up for the debate because I want to show where we stand on this issue and that the government, if it wishes, can actually seek support from us Social Democrats. I do not know if that will exists, because they have removed the part about the labor market parties having to agree on the need for labor immigration. What has been said instead is that they are increasing the maintenance threshold to 26,000 kronor.
I will read out the article I mentioned earlier again. Carin Hansdotter, who works within the construction industry's organization, says: If we look at those with foreign labor, one can, for example, receive a salary paid out according to all the rules, and one pays tax – but then perhaps the worker has to Swish back 8,000–10,000 kronor to the employer. We know this occurs both in our industry and in others.
I think it is important that we address this. We know that certain industries are much more affected. I also want to say that I understand that there is a need for labor with specialized expertise. But there must be ways where we can have specialized expertise that provides support – for example in the IT industry or other industries where there is a shortage of people – while at the same time employers do not exploit people in the most despicable ways.
As we debated once upon a time, this is also about whose fault it is. Is it the fault of the employer or of the one who has taken the job? It is still about people who have needs; they must send money to their children so that they survive. This therefore becomes a question that is very difficult, and therefore I really hope that the Minister does everything – as she says she does – so that we can put a stop to this problem.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! The question posed in the interpellation concerns whether I intend to work to ensure that the reporting obligation for posted workers remains in place. That question falls under my area of responsibility, and therefore it is I who am answering the interpellation here today. The answer to the question is, as I have said, that I will work to ensure that the reporting obligation remains in place.
In the article referred to in the interpellation and which is also mentioned by the members here today, the so-called A1 certificates are raised, as well as the negotiations concerning the 883 regulation - which fall within the area of the Ministry of Social Affairs. It is of course fine to submit an interpellation to that minister if one wants to get answers to questions regarding this, but as stated, it does not fall within my area of responsibility.
When it comes to the reporting obligation for posted workers, the government's message is clear: the rules have recently been tightened, and there are no plans to remove the reporting obligation. On the contrary, we see it as important so that we can have the posting registers, which are a very important tool, not least so that the parties in the labor market can ensure that we generally have a high level of our working conditions in Sweden.
I do, however, think it is positive that we have this debate and that we are talking about labor-related crime, because it is an incredibly important area. This requires a crackdown. Just as Member Begic points out, there are very many problems. In my work, I have seen examples where on paper it may look like the employee has good wage conditions, but where, when one looks at the forms of employment, one discovers conditions that make the employee incredibly indebted in relation to the employer. This person is perhaps forced to pay an overprice for, for example, rent and various forms of tickets and living costs, which means that in principle no money is left.
This clearly shows that inter-agency cooperation is required regarding these issues. Therefore, I am very pleased that we have a delegation for labor market crime that works with these issues, and we are also working on establishing akrimcenters around Sweden where the work is specifically to be carried out across agency boundaries.
Another important piece of the puzzle in the government's work is, of course, the review we are conducting of the secrecy provisions that today create obstacles for authorities to be able to work efficiently with one another. There is a proposal being prepared within the Government Offices - it lies with the Ministry of Finance - and which we will return to. It is also an incredibly important piece of the puzzle for us to tackle organized crime in Sweden.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! We are in complete agreement that crime in the working life is extremely important to combat, Minister.
Just as you yourself describe, work-related crime spans across several areas, and if one wants to discuss the problems, it is difficult to find a single minister who is responsible for all these issues. I have discussed this with the minister who is currently sitting behind you here in the chamber, whom I have raised previously. It is therefore difficult to get the discussion going, so when one wants to discuss an issue, it is good to be prepared and able to discuss it fully. In that case, it is not sufficient to blame it on the fact that it is not the minister's area.
I also pointed out earlier that the Minister for Employment, that is Johan Pehrson, did not want to come here and debate. Then Andreas Carlson replied that within the government, one takes responsibility for the entire government's policy, and that is what I expect ministers to actually do.
The a-crime centers that have been established are, as mentioned, an important part of this work. We have previously had joint agency cooperation that has been quite successful, and we must work with that. It is also important that the ministers understand their role and that they are able to think a bit outside their own silo when they discuss and debate these issues.
I note that the Minister seems to agree with me, that is to say that we should have no exceptions in this. Exceptions in legislation are usually the criminal's best friend, because that is how they find the loopholes in the legislation. We see it in many different contexts; as recently as in January or February, a rather important case was decided in the Court of Appeal which the Economic Crime Authority pursued against a large construction company. They managed to prove that 19 wage earners, I believe, were here and working without a permit.
There are quite a few rules that make this very difficult and that one should look more closely at. One should try to remove the various exceptions so that the same rules apply. In that case, it is important that one has the strength to look beyond the borders – and also has the strength to think outside one's own silo.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! Questions concerning crime in the working life fall within my area of responsibility, and I am very happy to answer them. I can, of course, also reach across departmental boundaries – this falls into the area of, among other things, the Ministry of Justice.
What concerns A1 certificates is a matter of social security benefits. This lies with the Ministry of Social Affairs, and questions regarding it are best answered by the responsible minister, Anna Tenje. If one wants to ask questions regarding that type of negotiation concerning the 883 regulation, it is most appropriate to direct them to her.
Overall, I would like to thank you for this debate. I am glad that the issue of crime in the working life is relatively often brought up for debate here in the Riksdag. This is an incredibly important area for the protection of the people who come here and work. This is also an important piece of our labor law protection for employees. Not least, it is about the work environment work. If we, for example, are to reduce the number of fatal accidents in the Swedish labor market, we must, on the one hand, have serious companies here, and on the other hand, ensure that our serious companies are not outcompeted by companies that offer worse working conditions, worse safety regulations, and worse safety for their employees.
I would like to thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.