Response to interpellation 2023/24:162 on the state grant for trade unions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L considers it unreasonable to pay the employers' organizations to submit statements 1 2. 1 L argues that statements should not be linked to state compensation 1 3 and that the unions should have their own interest in contributing to a well-functioning labor market 1. 4 L argues that the process should facilitate honest companies and that one should facilitate for those who want to do the right thing 4. 5 S argues that the abolition of the state subsidy implies a fundamental threat to the labor market system 5. 5 S argues that the unions are given an unreasonable administrative burden 5. 6 S considers that the authority lacks the knowledge to interpret agreements 6. 7 S considers that the decision risks worsening the quality of the labor market policy 7. S considers it reasonable to give the unions a grant to manage the workload.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me if I have assessed the risks of abolishing the state subsidy to employee organizations for certain costs and what emerged in this risk assessment. Sofia Amloh has also asked me if I will take any initiatives to secure the unions' willingness to continue to submit statements to the Public Employment Service.
Unemployment and long-term unemployment are high despite a strong demand for labor since the pandemic. Labor market policy needs to be designed so that more people get into work and so that it becomes more cost-effective.
Regarding the statements submitted by the workers' organizations to Arbetsförmedlingen in connection with measures located at a workplace, several regulatory changes were made in 2022 aimed at making the handling of statements more purposeful and well-functioning.
It was clarified that the workers' organizations are given the opportunity to comment on the suitability of the workplace based on the requirements for the organizer or the employer that apply to the respective program or intervention. At the same time, a new state grant was introduced for costs incurred to submit comments.
Submitting statements to authorities should generally not be linked to a state compensation. In the budget bill for 2024, the government therefore proposes that this state grant be abolished.
When it comes to the unions' propensity to submit statements, it is important that the processes and methods surrounding the work with statements are efficient and simple. Here, Arbetsförmedlingen, in dialogue with the labor organizations, has a responsibility to enable this. The labor organizations should have their own interest in submitting statements themselves in order to contribute to a well-functioning labor market.
It is important to emphasize that it is Arbetsförmedlingen that is responsible for carrying out employer checks with the aim of reviewing whether the company's economic and legal conditions meet the requirements set by regulations. The regulations for the subsidized employments give Arbetsförmedlingen the possibility, for example, to deny support to employers and organizers who do not have the economic means to pay wages to the employee or are convicted of economic crime.
I will follow the developments closely regarding the statements and their role in contributing to a well-functioning labor market.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I did not perceive that any risk assessment had been made. The Minister refers to the fact that the employers' organizations have their own interest in speaking out to contribute to a well-functioning labor market and that the Minister shall also follow this issue very carefully after one has changed this and removed the money to see what consequences the government's decision will have. I may sound a bit boring, but I think it sounds quite nonchalant.
Madam Speaker! When I hear the answer, I am still a bit curious whether the Minister knows how many different collective agreements there are in Sweden. I will not risk putting the Minister on the spot here, so I can say that there are 600 different collective agreements. That does not include the underlying local agreements that can be signed per workplace.
I will take the opportunity in the act and insert a passage stating that those who claim that the Swedish labor market or the Swedish model is not sufficiently flexible, that it is too static or not adapted to the unique conditions of different industries or individual workplaces, do not really know that there are 600 different collective agreements.
Every person is unique and should be placed at the right level where experience, education, age, etc. shall be weighed in relation to the nature of the work, scope, tasks, degree of difficulty, working conditions and much more. The opinions of the employers' organizations are significant for the Swedish Public Employment Service to be able to determine if a placement is possible.
I also want to emphasize that it is very labor-intensive for the unions. We are talking about approximately 200,000 inquiries to the unions per year, something that is considered necessary to be done. For some federations, it is an enormous task, and they have previously indicated that they might not manage to keep up with all these inquiries, which I would say is primarily a loss for society. It also makes it possible for unserious companies to take advantage of this opportunity.
I also assert that the authority is not an expert in interpreting the agreements, but rather it is both parties who are experts in interpreting the agreements. The authority does not have the knowledge required to inspect the respective workplaces.
Today, the state pays 50 percent and the unions cover the other half. This shows that they jointly believe that this is important and therefore take joint responsibility for the task. Now we notice that the state wants to take its hand off this and thinks that the unions should fix it according to their own ability. I think that is very unfortunate, because it will look very different. What conditions the different unions have will play a major role in how it looks with the order and already on the Swedish labor market.
My question is: Why does the Minister want to contribute to less coordination and more disorder when it concerns rather small amounts of money in the context, money that is also used quite effectively?
Serkan Köse (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Thanks also to Sofia Amloh for an important and pressing interpellation!
The government's decision does not only involve short-term measures, but it also constitutes a fundamental threat to the basic structure of our labor market system.
Let us first not underestimate the importance of the services that trade unions offer. They perform an important task by reviewing and providing opinions to Arbetsförmedlingen regarding labor market policy measures.
Madam Speaker! This process is crucial to ensure that decisions are based on correct and relevant information, which in turn is significant for avoiding incorrect payments of public funds.
Secondly, by abolishing the state subsidy, the government places an unreasonable burden on the trade unions' shoulders, which the Minister of Justice writes in his response and which Sofia Amloh also highlights. It is a burden that risks undermining this entire process.
If we are to problematize the consequences of the government's proposal, we can state that a heavy administrative burden arises as individual trade unions must collect and process a vast amount of information.
This includes information on the total number of statements submitted by various entities within the associations, from local branches to the headquarters, as well as details on how much working time was spent on these statements.
The trade unions' already strained resources will now be further burdened by the need to collect, process, and present extensive data without being paid for it. How reasonable is it to expect trade unions to perform this work without compensation, especially considering that it requires a significant amount of time and resources?
By ignoring these challenges and continuing with its decision to abolish the state subsidy, Johan Pehrson now risks creating an unsustainable situation for the trade unions. The government's proposal fundamentally shows a lack of understanding for and a lack of appreciation of the work that the trade unions perform today.
The work of the trade unions is not a luxury or an additional service. It is a central pillar in our labor market structure. By abolishing the state subsidy, the government undermines the trade unions' ability to perform their work. This, in turn, threatens the integrity of our entire labor market system.
In view of this, I would like to ask: How does Johan Pehrson expect trade unions to be able to maintain their important role in reviewing and commenting on labor market policy measures without financial support from the state?
My second question is: How does the government view the risk that this decision leads to a diminished quality in these opinions and thus also a diminished labor market policy in Sweden? Does the Minister see any connection between these parts?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is of course important to have good relations between the government and the Riksdag and the labor market parties. At the same time, one must ensure that the division of roles is correct and maintained so that the Swedish model is respected.
The government naturally stands behind the Swedish model. We see, for example, with pleasure how, through new agreements between the parties in the labor market, the establishment jobs can now be seen growing, and we see the entire transition package and the transition study support where employer and employee organizations take a great responsibility.
When it comes to this issue, we lay out all the questions for an analysis of pros and cons. We look at whether it is reasonable. It is important that one should be able to provide this insight to the labor organizations and that they should be able to submit these views. It is very important.
But it must also happen simply and uncomplicatedly. There is a great deal to develop there. We have been clear about this in our assignment to Arbetsförmedlingen. We also expect the labor organizations to participate in this to make it simpler. It is about being able to stop unserious actors who perhaps do not have the legal prerequisites required to be eligible for this intervention from Arbetsförmedlingen.
It is, after all, an exercise of authority that lies in this. It is Arbetsförmedlingen that is responsible for ensuring that the control functions. It has not always been the case that one has been able to provide comments, but that is something one should continue to be able to do.
We have judged that it is unreasonable for one to have to pay the labor organizations for this opportunity. They should manage this regardless. But it should be handled in a simple and efficient way so that the burden referred to in the interpellation does not become particularly extensive.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! The unions respond to inquiries and conduct the review. They will continue to do so to the extent of the capacity that will exist when they are left with the entire responsibility themselves when there is no shared responsibility for this between the state and the unions themselves for the financing.
Unions are pillars of society. They take on the responsibility to ensure that job seekers are not exploited or put at risk. It is about ensuring that unserious companies do not compete on different terms than those who want to do the right thing, or that the welfare system is exploited. On that, we are not in disagreement.
Crime in the labor market in Sweden is an extensive problem. It has a close link with other types of crime. The exchange of knowledge and cooperation between authorities and the parties in the labor market contribute to countering crime and regulatory violations. Requests from Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket, and the unions' reviews and statements, are a very important part of that knowledge exchange and cooperation.
When the unions conduct the inspections, visit the workplaces and speak with the employees, they find deficiencies or other things that they can quickly report on. This can contribute to making the inspections faster in order to achieve that effect.
That part of the statements should be developed. But that also requires resources. The state's motivation for maintaining the state subsidy should be that the review shall counteract precisely unserious companies and ensure that the state, together with the unions, contributes to the serious companies benefiting.
My question to the Minister is quite simply: Why is it being removed when it clearly works well and also does not involve that much money? It cannot be the sums and crowns that you need to chase most hard.
We are talking about the cooperation between authorities and the center against labor crime, which is established together with the unions, and their possibilities to carry out controls. Why remove the money? Why not let them continue to exist?
Serkan Köse (S)
Madam Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's review of subsidized employments shows that this type of decision on employments is very administratively demanding. It requires many resources. The Swedish National Audit Office also pointed out that it concerns approximately 200,000 such requests that are made every year.
The Minister does not quite answer the question of how he intends to ensure that the trade unions will be able to maintain their important role and review these statements. There are 200,000 such requests. The Minister expects that work to be done for free and that it is their role.
At the same time, the Minister refers to Arbetsförmedlingen. But there, the Minister is reducing Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative appropriation, which could worsen the situation. Despite the government having appropriated a specific sum for these controls, this sum is insufficient to effectively handle the large volume of requests.
With this financial limitation in combination with the current inefficiency, it can be stated that there is a major challenge for Arbetsförmedlingen and the employers' organizations. This obviously affects the quality of the labor market policy in Sweden.
With the abolition and the cut from Johan Pehrson, the workers' organizations are faced with very great challenges. The change risks weakening the workers' organizations' ability to effectively issue statements and perform their work, which we consider important for a well-functioning labor market.
Again: How does Johan Pehrson intend to ensure that the labor organizations can continue to perform their important functions without receiving compensation for it?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Submitting statements to authorities should generally not be linked to a state compensation. That is the very basis of this. But it must be possible. It is important because we need to have extensive joint efforts from many different authorities and preferably all other actors as well who are involved and take social construction responsibility, not least the parties in the labor market.
But to address, not least, organized crime, it is not enough to just invest so heavily in the justice system and ensure that it grows, as the government is doing. It is about a-krim centers and that entire package to get at these serious criminals. As you know, it can amount to up to 10, 20, or 100 billion. There are many different figures on how much money flows out of tax money that should go somewhere else, to important initiatives. This concerns, among other things, education, which we have talked about before, and welfare in general.
The central point is that one has an opportunity to deliver these statements in an efficient and well-functioning manner. Now, the National Audit Office's report on subsidized employment was mentioned, and it is clear that the government will return to it with an answer in the form of a communication to the Riksdag. Then we will have the opportunity to debate it.
One reason why not all money might not always be used is that an extensive control is carried out. But it may need to be better. If one puts the 200,000 statements into relation to the amounts we are talking about, I can assure the debaters in the interpellation debate that the decisive factor is that it is done in an efficient and functioning manner. There have not been more statements since the possibility was introduced to be paid to submit statements to the authority, but rather the opposite.
It is very important here that one works with the main process for the whole thing to function effectively. That is the assignment that Arbetsförmedlingen has today, and I am completely certain that trade unions and workers' organizations are prepared to help to facilitate. They also have a great interest in the operation functioning in a good way.
The possibility is great to influence by being able to submit statements. But the principle that one is paid to submit statements and that it should be linked to a state compensation is in no way self-evident.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by saying that it is not about paying a full amount that covers and perhaps even gives a little more, as it almost sounds like. It is about a 50 percent contribution, that is, half. One pays the other half oneself, and many times perhaps it does not quite cover what one has put in. It may have been required that one has put in more time, for there are many agreements, as we were touching upon. It must be correct, and it may perhaps need to be sent back. There are many things that must be reviewed so that it becomes correct and proper. I think, therefore, that a bit more nuance is required regarding this.
It is about getting to the bottom of the problems. It is not the case that work-life crime is receding and that we receive fewer reports on welfare crime and work-life crime. We do not see reports that subsidized employments are not being exploited by unscrupulous companies, but on the contrary. We are reached by far too many such reports. This applies in particular to the National Audit Office report.
If there are social actors in the form of the parties on the labor market, one should use their full potential in a stylish way, I would argue, by giving the unions a reasonable chance to manage this workload through a grant. I think it is quite reasonable. Why is it so important for this government to remove the state grant?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! I repeat what I said: Submitting statements to authorities should generally not be linked to a state compensation. It is Arbetsförmedlingen that is responsible for ensuring that the legal requirements are correct in this case.
But the opportunity to submit statements is important, and that process should be designed in such a way that it facilitates things for all honest companies and all those who want to do the right thing. I agree with what Sofia Amloh points out here about right having to be right. It is also reasonable for companies to meet fair competition and not a lot of actors who are unserious or, in the worst case, grossly criminal.
The focus is on making this easier, and it is also part of Arbetsförmedlingen's mandate to ensure that it is easy to submit statements. But the principled basis is, after all, that one should not pay for someone to submit statements. It is, in any case, a very unusual approach.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.