Response to interpellation 2022/23:366 on establishment jobs

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I have been asked why I have not taken the measures required for the establishment jobs to be able to get on site.

As I have previously explained, among other things in a number of answers to parliamentary questions, there is a regulatory framework for state compensation for work in establishment jobs that has been in force since 1 September 2022. Svenskt Näringsliv, Unionen, and LO subsequently agreed in late 2022 on agreements regarding establishment jobs. But the parties' agreement deviates in certain respects from the already decided regulatory framework.

Allow me, therefore, to look back. In March 2018, the then government and Minister for Employment Ylva Johansson declared that they were in agreement with the labor market parties that establishment jobs should be introduced. However, the government was clear that it would take some time. Certain legislative changes were required, and the support would first have to be reported to the EU. Therefore, the establishment jobs would not be in place until 2019. That is not how it turned out.

After that, economic resources have been allocated for establishment jobs in the budget bills for 2020, 2021 and 2022. In the budget bills for 2021 and 2022, the government at that time stated that it was working to introduce establishment jobs. In June 2022, the regulatory framework regarding state compensation for work in establishment jobs was decided, and it entered into force on 1 September 2022, as mentioned.

In 2018, the then government agreed with the parties that the wage and the state compensation to the individual shall follow the wage development. No model for this was included in the regulatory framework that the previous government decided in 2022.

It has now been about eight months since the government I represent took office. Shortly thereafter, the parties presented their agreement on establishment jobs. In the budget bill for 2023, funds have been allocated for establishment jobs, and the government is now preparing the issue and analyzing the consequences of the latest agreement and how it relates to the current regulatory framework. In that work, there are a number of aspects that the government must consider and which take some time, and this work needs to be done responsibly.

Changes to the regulatory framework also have administrative and practical consequences for the authorities concerned, Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan, and require, among other things, IT development efforts.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer and for the fact that we are given the opportunity to debate this, which we have not done previously.

I want to start by briefly describing what the establishment jobs are. It is a system where employers can hire at a lower cost while the individual receives a reasonable income and the necessary training for the job. The union also gains influence so that the system cannot be abused.

The establishment jobs are intended to be granted to the long-term unemployed who are registered with Arbetsförmedlingen. The employer's cost during the employment is added to the establishment compensation from the state, which means that the entire income the employee receives corresponds to the minimum wage within the agreement area.

At most, the employee will be able to have an establishment job for a period of two years. After that, the establishment job shall, in the normal case, transition to a permanent employment.

The agreement entered into force on 1 January 2023 but can only begin to be applied after the government has implemented a regulatory amendment in accordance with the parties' requirements. This form, I would argue, is more accurate and involves a very low risk of exploitation and fraud, in contrast to other subsidized employments that exist today. I have been involved in this in previous debates when it comes to the "nystartsjobb" (new start jobs), for which the government is pouring money while we know that employers can exploit those types of forms of employment.

The Minister allowed himself to take a look back in his answer, Madam Speaker, and I shall do the same and supplement what the Minister said in his answer. To this story belongs also that the Sweden Democrats were the only party that voted against the establishment jobs here in this chamber. Now it is SD that the government is subject to. Could it have anything to do with this matter?

Madam Speaker! In his response, the Minister provides the most bureaucratic excuses as to why the reform is not in place, with references to the fact that it should be done responsibly. The most responsible thing the Minister can do is to ensure that the ordinance is put in place so that people can begin to be employed and so that people can move from long-term unemployment to work. It would also be responsible towards the parties in the labor market and the Swedish model to now put the final dot over the i.

Johan Pehrson is minister and head of the Ministry of Employment. Pehrson has a very well-elaborated reform on his desk, a regulatory framework is in place, there is a finished agreement, the EU has given the green light and there is money in the budget.

If the government wants but cannot implement something that is fully prepared, I become deeply concerned about the government's inability, but if it is the case that it is the Sweden Democrats who do not want to, I can understand that Pehrson comes up with bureaucratic excuses. But that does not make the matter any less baffling.

The most honest thing would perhaps be to say that one is not in agreement. So to my question: Is it the case that the Tidö parties are not in agreement that the establishment jobs shall take full effect and that the fully expanded ones shall include 10,000 jobs?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The parties in the labor market have for several years struggled to reach an agreement on a new special form of employment to break long-term unemployment and to maintain the work line, where more people can go to work and fewer go on benefits. It is both about breaking exclusion and segregation and about facilitating companies' supply of skills.

It is very true that the reform has also taken time during the Social Democratic government's tenure. There have been many turns and obstacles along the way. This the gods, and the Liberals for that matter, should know. But we worked very intensively on the reform, and we also got the regulatory framework in place. Last year, the EU also gave its approval to the reform.

At the beginning of December last year, the parties finally also signed the agreement on the establishment jobs, and since then, the only thing missing to get things rolling is for the government to adjust the current ordinance. This should be relatively quickly and easily done, but now half a year later, still nothing has happened.

We Social Democrats have on repeated occasions asked the government why it is taking so long. We called the Minister for Employment to the committee, but I can only state that we have not received any intelligible answers, but only sweeping excuses that the parties' agreement might deviate from the EU's approval, which necessitates the need for new analyses. This was what we heard here from the rostrum. Why, in that case, no process has been initiated with the EU to sort out the whole matter is, in that case, completely incomprehensible.

The legal analyses that Johan Pehrson sets out in his response here today appear increasingly like excuses, Madam Speaker, especially since the Sweden Democrats have actually confirmed that the establishment jobs are negotiated between the Tidö parties. It has been confirmed.

We also know that everyone except the Sweden Democrats agrees that establishment jobs are needed. That the Sweden Democrats specifically want to counter establishment jobs is because it is partly – not solely, it is worth underlining – foreign-born individuals who will be employed with that form of employment. Promoting integration and countering segregation does not directly align with the Sweden Democrats' philosophy; I believe we are in agreement on that here.

I therefore understand that the Minister for Employment has ended up in a very difficult situation, squeezed between what he himself wants and what the Sweden Democrats demand from the government. We Social Democrats have tried to help the government move forward by proposing a committee initiative in the Committee on Employment. There, the government parties could have taken our outstretched hand, but unfortunately, they rejected the initiative.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want to sabotage the reform, which is perhaps the most important and most thoroughly worked out in years to break long-term unemployment. The government has therefore delayed the start of the establishment jobs for half a year now. If the government fumbles away the establishment jobs, it would be a huge betrayal both towards the long-term unemployed and towards the labor market partners, who have placed their trust in the policy.

I therefore urge the Minister for Employment to press the start button now. Do not let this reform, which so clearly aims to break the segregation in our country, be haggled away or taken hostage by the Sweden Democrats and their reluctance and parliamentary trickery.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Sofia Amloh, for the opportunity to debate the establishment jobs!

On 20 December, I submitted a written question to the Minister for Employment regarding how the government would get the establishment jobs in place as quickly as possible. At that time, the parties had met approximately one month earlier and reached an agreement on the establishment jobs. The response from the Minister for Employment then was that it would be analyzed with regard to legal issues and financing.

After this, we Social Democrats have repeatedly asked questions about the establishment jobs, but nothing seems to be happening. The answers have essentially remained unchanged, and it is worrying that nothing has occurred in the Government Offices.

When we have put more pressure on the government on this issue, certain new parts have been able to be discerned. In the answer to this interpellation, there will be further new things from the Minister for Employment. The Minister for Employment said: "Changes to the regulatory framework also have administrative and practical consequences for the relevant agencies, Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan, and require, among other things, new IT development."

Madam Speaker! After more than six months of analysis work, it is concluded that there will be consequences for the administrative work of Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan and that a new development is required. It sounds strange that it takes six months. I suspect that the analyses will continue.

But despite these analyses, the Minister for Employment believes that it is still possible to make further efficiencies at Arbetsförmedlingen, despite new administrative tasks and more work.

The Minister for Employment has previously said that everyone who can work should work. But how much does the Minister believe the state should help? Or is it just about whipping and making it harder to be poor and excluded? Is this the liberal labor market policy?

The Minister for Employment has previously said that it is too easy to be unemployed. But still, measures to get more people into work are delayed. Does the government stand by the model we have in Sweden, where the parties take a large responsibility for the labor market? If so, why are we not moving forward with the establishment jobs?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! We are debating an important issue, a completely new model aimed at creating employment for the long-term unemployed but, above all, for newcomers. Through the establishment jobs, new opportunities to the working life are opened for those who have previously had difficulty finding employment. At the same time, companies get an opportunity to meet their competence supply. By offering employment to the long-term unemployed and newcomers, opportunities are given for them to establish themselves in the labor market and thereby improve their economic situation and integration into society. This is of the utmost importance to promote inclusion and reduce exclusion.

Madam Speaker! A central part of the establishment jobs is that they normally transition to a permanent employment after two years. This means that those who are offered an establishment job receive a stable employment with long-term prospects. By being offered permanent employment, the opportunities for the employees to plan their future and create a secure life are increased.

But what is the policy doing? Since the right-wing government took over, Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson has spoken positively about the establishment jobs and was initially eager to get them started as soon as possible. But since then, the work has completely stalled, and now everyone is wondering why it is taking the government so long to act.

On April 14, I submitted a written question to the Minister and asked when the establishment jobs will be in place. The answer I received was that the parties' agreement deviates from the already decided regulatory framework. The Minister wrote in his answer that the government is now preparing the issue and analyzing the consequences of the agreement and how it relates to the current regulatory framework. In the answer, the Minister also states that it concerns, among other things, legal issues and financing, as the state is to grant compensation for work in establishment jobs. The government also writes that they are in a dialogue with Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, and Unionen.

It can be noted that neither the parties nor we members of the Swedish Riksdag receive clear answers as to what the legal issues are or receive any clarifications regarding the funding. The usual answer we all receive is that there are a number of aspects that the government must consider. This takes some time, they write.

In view of this, I would like to ask the Minister again: How do the Government and the Minister respond to the criticism from trade unions and employers who believe that the Government has not been able to explain the problem sufficiently?

My second question is: What specific obstacles and challenges related to legal issues and funding have delayed the implementation of the establishment jobs, and how is the government working to overcome the legal and financial challenges?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for all the questions about the establishment jobs which are, in my view, an important complement to the broad palette of measures that this government, with me at the helm, offers people in Sweden so that they can move from, not least, exclusion to inclusion and be able to get their first job or get a new permanent job if they have been affected by unemployment. We have a large set of measures. And I would like to see that we reach the goal with this as soon as possible.

The opposition in the form of the Social Democrats is making a lot of speculations. I would just like to refer to the fact that in the budget that four coalition parties have agreed upon, we have set aside funds for this. It could be a hint that we are quite close.

The previous government also allocated resources year after year, but nothing happened. It is surprising given that it is so incredibly easy and so incredibly important. But it is also partly complicated because you cannot put companies in a situation where they become liable for repayment if it were to turn out that the analysis is too weak.

I can understand that many think it should go very fast and that it should have happened preferably yesterday. I have great respect for that. But it is still difficult to take that with you when you are to take full responsibility for ensuring that this lands in a good way. But it is very close, and I hope to soon be able to return to the Riksdag with news that the establishment jobs are another important complement. And this is such a good complement because it is about real jobs and jobs that are to lead to a regular employment.

I usually receive some refreshing criticism from the opposition about us removing the extra services that absolutely did not have this purpose. Here it is very clearly stated, even from the parties that take a great responsibility. These are parties that we during this half-year have cooperated very closely with on a multitude of issues concerning developments within the EU and EU law. We have had a number of difficult directives that we are acting on in order to comply with and protect the Swedish model. We have invited the parties, and they have participated very actively and positively in this cooperation. In that case, it is a matter of not making mistakes at the finish line.

But I understand that you are standing there and are eager for it to go even faster. But those who are waiting for something good should not have to wait much longer. That is my opinion.

When we talk about EU cooperation, I can say that I listened to the radio this morning and heard that very many people are positive about the government's work during the EU presidency. We were scolded in one area. It was that the bureaucrats' premises were not festive enough and neither were the journalists'. No, we have managed the state's resources and focused on content and quality. And lo and behold, Madam Speaker, we do it even when it comes to the establishment jobs.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Hinges, life belts, helmets and life jackets – how much does the Minister need to have in order to implement a finished reform? That it took many years for the previous government can the Minister talk himself warm about. But it is finished and worked through. It is the dot over the i. But perhaps a few more hinges were needed. I do not know what else the Minister needs. Is the incredible caution something that the Minister will be consistent with when it also concerns other measures – how the money shall be used so that it does not need to be paid back and so on?

The Minister also says in his response that we Social Democrats are so eager for this to be put in place. Yes, we are – but it is not only us who are. If there are now finished, well-elaborated proposals for reforms that the Minister has previously requested, we do not understand what there is to wait for. But it is not only us Social Democrats who are eager for this to be put in place. We can take just a small selection of headlines from the spring: "Establishment jobs are taking a long time - 'no timetable exists'" and "I wonder what the government's job policy is." It is not Social Democrats who are the parents of these headlines, but it is Svenskt Näringsliv. Their criticism of the government is stone-hard – especially when it comes to the establishment jobs but also when it comes to the transition study support.

What has happened after this government took over the government power is that CSN is not receiving the resources needed for the transition study support, which was a major trade union victory in the contested LAS negotiations and agreements. CSN is not receiving the resources needed by Johan Pehrson's colleague Mats Persson. It is at least 600 million that will be wasted just this year, instead of people being able to educate and further educate themselves and transition in the labor market.

That these two things have not been put in place during the past year is a huge problem in itself for all the individuals who would need them. It concerns people who should have been given the opportunity to transition or receive their job training to obtain a permanent employment. But it is also an alarmingly large problem that one is betraying the Swedish model and eroding it. It is the parties who have done the hard work when it comes to both of these gigantic agreements, and now the government is sitting and over-reviewing the parties. One says no, or yes - or what?

This could have very large consequences, because if we do not have the order on the Swedish labor market that we have had for a long time and which has created security and prosperity, what order should we then have on the Swedish labor market, Johan Pehrson?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The problem, Johan Pehrson, is not only that it takes time for the government but also that nothing happens in the meantime - and for that part, the Sweden Democrats have declared that this is a negotiation issue between the Tidö parties.

It is senseless that the establishment jobs hang by a thread. Johan Pehrson has had the reform served on a silver platter but is unable to deliver because the Sverigedemokraterna do not want to implement reforms that contribute to facilitating even the establishment of newcomers in the labor market. They do not care that it means they are putting a spoke in the wheels for all other long-term unemployed.

I hear that the Minister for Employment is trying to blame the parties and hide behind the EU, but it is incomprehensible what is actually meant by that. The EU has, in fact, already given its approval. If there were truly genuine question marks regarding whether that approval still holds, I wonder why the government has not contacted the Commission to try to sort that out. Instead, we are told that the government has sat in its chamber and pondered for half a year.

That wages are increasing is completely normal. It should not be anything strange or surprising - especially not since it was also included in the statement of intent from the very beginning.

Everyone can see that Johan Pehrson is hiding behind excuses here and that the real obstacle does not lie with the EU but with the government's and the government base's largest party, that is to say the party that openly and clearly says that it does not want any establishment jobs and that the future of establishment jobs is a matter for negotiation. It would be honest if the minister could at least admit that is the case. Everyone sees and understands what is happening anyway. Everyone can see that the emperor is naked.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! I am unsure if any of us here in the chamber or among those following the debate on TV feel certain that this government, which is led by the Sverigedemokraterna, will deliver on what the parties have agreed upon.

The Minister for Employment, in his first contribution, gave a historical description that sounded as if he were trying to shift the blame onto the previous government instead of taking responsibility for his actions here and now. The fact is, however, that the previous government had prepared the necessary changes and that now only regulatory changes are missing for the government to be able to deliver when it comes to the establishment jobs.

I suspect, however, that the problem lies in the cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, because they do not want this solution. They do not want everyone who can work to work. The establishment jobs have become a bargaining chip, and it is still doubtful who comes out winning from that negotiation.

Is the government going to betray the parties again, just as was done regarding the transition study support? Is it the case that through the Minister for Employment's recently appointed labor market policy council, we see what the government actually thinks about the parties – that they are not experts in the field and that they should not have as active a role in the labor market as they have previously had?

How does it feel for the government and Johan Pehrson to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, who so clearly put a spoke in the wheels for the establishment jobs?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! In connection with the Committee on Employment's consideration of the issue of establishment jobs, the Sweden Democrats had a reservation. They completely rejected the proposal on establishment jobs and instead advocated for their own proposal on apprenticeship jobs. One of the arguments put forward by SD was that the jobs should be targeted at the long-term unemployed and newcomers, and that the party opposes measures that specifically target newcomers.

As has been noted, both trade unions and employers are frustrated that the establishment jobs have not yet been implemented. They also wonder what the problem is, which the government, according to them, has not managed to explain. I also do not feel that I have received any real answer here today. We do, however, know that the Sweden Democrats, who do not support the establishment jobs, say that the issue is being negotiated with the government and that Johan Pehrson speaks of a rethink. The question everyone is asking is: What is it that actually applies?

According to the Sverigedemokraterna economic-policy spokesperson Oscar Sjöstedt, negotiations regarding the establishment jobs are ongoing between the Tidö parties. He says in a written comment to TT: "It is no secret that we are critical of all forms of failed labor market measures" and "This is, however, a matter of negotiations with the government parties, and what we ultimately land on is far too early to say."

According to Sjöstedt, all Tidö parties agree that labor market policy measures should be simplified and replaced with fewer, more cost-effective interventions that lead to jobs. The Sweden Democrats are critical because of "the great cost for almost non-existent benefit," to quote Oscar Sjöstedt again.

Against this background, I would like to ask the Minister two concrete questions, and I hope to be able to receive answers to them. The first question is: How does the Minister view the Sweden Democrats' criticism regarding the establishment jobs? The second question is: Are negotiations ongoing between the government and the Sweden Democrats regarding the establishment jobs?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is correct that the government has taken office depending on the choice the voters made at the last time there was an election in Sweden - specifically last year, in fact. Then the voters felt that a new direction for Sweden was needed, where we tackle such decisive issues as Swedish prosperity and welfare in the future - and not least the jobs. We need to invest in and change the regulations and the system for energy production in Sweden. We must fight inflation with force and fortify internal and external security.

We can certainly have slightly different opinions about all the measures in the palette that exists today at Arbetsförmedlingen and the other actors. Just take Samhall - constant seminars are organized in the Swedish Riksdag about what Samhall should look like in the future. I hear all kinds of arguments from all kinds of parties all the time.

The same can apply to the establishment jobs. I can only take responsibility for what I myself think. To help counter energetically driven theories about the problem that they are not on site right now, even though the Social Democrats started in 2018, I can say that the establishment jobs are included in the budget.

It is no secret that the coalition parties are negotiating. It is hard and tough, and we may disagree. But the unique thing about this cooperation is that we have a majority when we come to the Riksdag. This majority means that we will, with great probability, get through the proposals that we place on the Riksdag's table. We see it as a strength for Sweden.

I have full respect for the fact that you in the opposition think it is the wrong content. That is completely obvious. If it weren't for too little, too late, and too poorly done, you wouldn't be doing your job as the opposition. But sometimes you have to be a bit careful. One second you say that too little is being done, the next it's going too slowly. You cannot make all these mistakes at once. It is actually almost impossible.

We are working on the issue, and we are negotiating. How do I view the fact that people have different opinions? I see it as positive. I think it is good that one is allowed to think differently. It would be strange if all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag thought exactly alike, and even if all the coalition parties did. The coalition parties are now trying to bridge the enormous gaps that exist in Sweden, and which we inherited, between people who stand outside the labor market and the available jobs that exist.

Once again, I want to say that I believe the establishment jobs are an incredibly strong and important complement. We will return as soon as possible, but perhaps we should not do so in an extra budget, as during the pandemic. We are working intensively on the issue. I understand that there is another opinion: that the establishment jobs should have been finished yesterday. But that is not the case, rather they will be finished one day in the future – as soon as possible, I hope. It will be easier to focus entirely on this now that we can leave the Swedish presidency behind. We shall ensure that we continue to safeguard the Swedish model, which has served Sweden very well, with responsible parties and a cooperation between the state and the Riksdag, in practice with the government as an intermediary. We are currently working intensively to get this in place.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! There is money in the budget, the Minister has said a number of times. What is the problem then, more precisely? There is still no answer to that. The palette of a range of different measures that the Minister highlights has only become thinner and thinner and more colorless. The establishment jobs are not in place, and I am deeply concerned that they will not come into place either. I can state that there is one less solution instead of one more solution for more people to get into work.

Johan Pehrson is not just brushing away 10,000 jobs, he is also breaking down our successful way of organizing the labor market. It has given us prosperity and security. What happens if we do not have the established order in our labor market? I think the Minister should take that question with him. I am deeply concerned. When it comes to the major negotiations regarding the establishment jobs and the transition study support, this government has not had the ability to deliver. The parties are deeply upset. It will have consequences if that trust breaks down.

The Minister can take this in his flatness. He lays himself completely flat for the Sweden Democrats to get to title himself minister. But it is only the title he has, for he does not lead or decide. The consequences risk being great.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It hurts when buds burst. Most have burst out here, for now summer is in full bloom. But even the Social Democrats have pain in their strong anguish over not having the power themselves. We now have a government that does not run around and turn over all the world's stones but moves them step by step and stone by stone to create what this country needs: an efficient and sustainable labor market policy with high quality. I understand that the Social Democrats believe they are destined to do this for all eternity. But that is not the case.

Now we ensure that we get a continued development where we reduce the skills gap and move people from long-term unemployment into work. We ensure that fewer need to stand in queues and that long-term unemployment does not continue to grow. It is about nothing other than getting the job done. Then I understand that people think it is going too slowly, that it is too little and that it is too late. That is the opposition's constant criticism.

Nothing is more necessary than ensuring that we have a labor market policy that meets the needs that exist. We have presented the government's announcement. The establishment jobs are an important complementary part. Unlike other measures, which we have removed, the establishment jobs are workplace-oriented. They shall lead to more people getting jobs, not least people who are far from the labor market. It is important. We shall ensure that they are implemented.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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