Response to interpellation 2023/24:323 on the work environment strategy

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! Johanna Haraldsson has asked me what initiatives I and the government have taken as a result of the government's work environment strategy, and what reforms I consider necessary for strengthened preventive work environment work in Swedish workplaces.

I would like to start by thanking you for the question and underlining that I share Johanna Haraldsson's commitment to issues regarding the work environment.

In 2021, the then government presented a work environment strategy in a communication to the Riksdag. The overall goal of the strategy aligns with the goal of the work life policy regarding good working conditions and opportunities for development in work for both women and men. Furthermore, the sub-goal of a work environment that prevents ill health and accidents, which counters the exclusion of people from work, which takes into account people's different circumstances, and which contributes to the development of both individuals and operations is included.

The strategy contains, in addition to the mentioned goals within labor market policy, four sub-goals: a sustainable working life, a healthy working life, a secure working life, and a labor market without crime and fraud. The Government is working purposefully to achieve these sub-goals; among other things, all seven labor market crime centers are now in place. These centers function as hubs for the authorities' work against labor market crime.

Regarding what reforms are intended, a clear regulatory framework is already in place through the Work Environment Act (1977:1160). The legislation is based on the employer cooperating with the employees in order to achieve a good work environment. It is the employers, the employees, and their representatives who together carry out the daily work environment work at the individual workplaces. It is, and will continue to be, the systematic and preventive work environment work that is the basis for a good work environment. This must be a natural part of the operations for all employers, both large and small.

But against the background of the past year's dark development regarding work-related deaths, it is clear that responsible actors need to do more to strengthen the preventive work. I have therefore called in representatives for the labor market's parties to listen to what measures they see that can strengthen the preventive work.

In conclusion, as I answered Johanna Haraldsson in a written question on 7 June 2023, I believe - and this remains unchanged - that Sweden has an ambitious work environment strategy with a direction for work environment work at the national level. It is also well anchored both among the authorities in the field and among the parties in the labor market. The work to achieve the goals in the strategy continues.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! We are in many respects in agreement on what we need to do to reach the goal that no one should have to take their life because of work or at work.

The strategy that we are to debate today is the strategy that the Social Democratic government submitted to the Riksdag as a memorandum in February 2021. It is well-anchored and comprehensive and formed the basis for the government's work on occupational health and safety issues. Just as we just heard from Paulina Brandberg, the current government also says it is continuing to work according to the strategy.

The strategy also contains a zero vision. No one should have to die because of their job. Of course, it is about not having to die at work, but also about not having to suffer from ill health and die prematurely because of work.

The strategy's goal is a sustainable working life that enables everyone to work a full working life, a healthy and safe working life where one should not risk life and health at work, and a labor market without crime and fraud.

This requires major efforts from all actors - from the government and authorities, from the parties in the labor market, from the employers and from the employees and their safety representatives. All employers have an obligation, together with the employees and their representatives, to map risks and do everything they can to ensure that the work environment is safe and secure. This work must be constantly ongoing.

Last year's many fatal accidents in Swedish workplaces and the fact that thousands die prematurely every year due to work-related ill health show that the preventive work must be prioritized even more in our workplaces. According to the Swedish Work Environment Authority, most workplace accidents would never have happened if one had done what is required by law. If risk assessments had been made, the measures required to minimize the risks discovered had been implemented, and systematic work with the work environment had been performed, the accidents would never have happened.

It can also be assumed that fewer would have been affected by ill health if one had worked preventatively and systematically with the work environment.

These most basic rules about working systematically and preventatively with the work environment have, however, obviously not sufficient weight with the employers. Connected to physical risks in the work environment, the employer can be ordered to pay sanction fees if the requirements are not met. If one does not do what one is supposed to, one shall be punished financially.

This is what we Social Democrats want to change, but I wonder if the government wants it. There are ready-made proposals that would increase the motivation of employers to actually work systematically and preventatively with the work environment. The Minister and I agree that it is clear that responsible actors need to do more to strengthen the preventive work, just as the Minister said just now. One of those actors is, after all, the government.

What is the government prepared to do to strengthen preventive work in the working environment? What is the government prepared to do to ensure that risk assessments become better and that those that are not being carried out today actually are carried out?

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday we had a debate here in the chamber about fatal accidents. I ended up in a discussion with Minister Paulina Brandberg which I feel we didn't quite finish, so I thought I would take the opportunity today. What she wanted to talk a bit more with me about were safety representatives, which are very important for the work environment, both to prevent hazards and to detect them.

I was asked how I viewed safety representatives who were not elected by the union. In that case, I must pose the question back to the Minister. If the safety representatives are appointed by trade union organizations and the representatives are covered by the representative protection act, which gives them protection. There are reasons for that, such as that the safety representatives should receive good training and time off for it and that they should not fall behind wage-wise at work because of the assignment. They should also be protected in a purely legal sense - one should not be able to be redeployed and so on. There are very many things that are clever about being covered by a protective law.

Now, Paulina Brandberg and the government have not come forward with any proposal, and we are not going to anticipate anything. But purely hypothetically, what would it look like if we were to have more safety representatives who were not elected by a trade union organization and were not covered by the representative of the employees act? How does the Minister believe those safety representatives would dare to demand things from employers without risking reprisals? Who gives them support to prevent them from being redeployed if they are a bit "troublesome"? If a dispute arises, will they have to pay their own legal costs, or is it something that the state should do?

I would very much like to have answers to those questions.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I first want to comment on the part of the Minister's response describing the dark development at the end of last year regarding the number of fatal accidents, which was then very large. This year too has started darkly, as we already have fatal accidents in our workplaces. The Minister states that she has therefore called in the parties in the labor market to listen to what measures they see are needed to strengthen the preventive work.

That it required this development for the assistant Minister for Employment to call the parties together, that it has not been done previously—the entire strategy is built very much on these parts—and that it is because of this development that one now chooses to want to talk with the parties, I think is quite remarkable. That it is being done is, however, good. I think it should be a standing item in the schedule and on the agenda if one is a Minister at the Ministry of Employment.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday we had a party leadership debate in the chamber where the Minister's colleague in the same department, Johan Pehrson, in the exchange of remarks with Magdalena Andersson touched upon the strategy we have today. The Minister has himself said today that it is good and that he intends to continue working according to it, which we have seen as very good. Johan Pehrson did, however, claim in yesterday's party leadership debate that this strategy, in light of the developments we have seen recently, needs to be significantly revised.

My question to the Minister is: Is it the strategy that is wrong, or is it that one is not working hard enough to implement the measures that must be taken in order to live up to the strategy? Should the focus lie on measures for the preventive work to improve the work environment and live up to the work environment strategy, or on the strategy itself? Does the Minister think the strategy is good and that one should continue to work with it after 2025, or does she think the strategy is not good enough?

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the members for their contributions. I am glad that we can also this late afternoon discuss these important issues.

I want to start with an important aspect. Over the past month, we have, for good reason, talked a lot about the fatal accidents. It is important that we do so because we see a terrible development. But it is important that we do not forget the broad perspective, which has also been highlighted by the members. The fatal accidents at work are part of the tragedy. But we also have far too many who are injured, become ill, and die from work.

This is also an important equality issue. There are large gender differences. It is men who die at work and primarily women who become ill from work. It is therefore important that we have that aspect with us when we talk about these issues. When it comes to these issues, we must of course have a work environment strategy, legislation, and work that handles the problems in their entirety.

What is the government prepared to do? We must, of course, have a functioning, systematic work environment management, which is exactly what has been highlighted here. Then we must work, among other things, on making it easy to do the right thing, for those who want to do the right thing. In that regard, the government has, among other things, developed the work with safety representatives, as was mentioned here. We have also addressed that we must go after those who do not want to do the right thing. We must raise the level of ambition when it comes to tackling crime in the workplace. We must work within both areas.

I am happy to add a little extra regarding the safety representatives, which Member Weidby raised and which we spoke about yesterday. As I said yesterday, it is correct that there are different legislations that provide different protections for those who are trade union members and those who are not. The Trade Union Representative Act applies to the trade union safety representatives and provides better protection.

The problem is that we have too few safety representatives. The government considers that safety representatives fulfill an important function in our Swedish workplaces. It is a problem that more and more workplaces lack safety representatives. Against that background, the government has tasked the Swedish Work Environment Authority to look at how we can get more safety representatives generally. This applies to both the union and the non-union safety representatives. We think that all safety representatives are needed.

In yesterday's debate, I asked Member of Parliament Weidby if Vänsterpartiet wants to change today's legislation and remove the non-union safety representatives, and how, in that case, they view the consequence of us having even more workplaces that stand without local safety representatives. Today, I want to bounce that question further to the interpellator Haraldsson.

How do the Social Democrats view this, given the criticism that has been directed at the government regarding the mandate we have given to Arbetsmiljöverket? Will the Social Democrats remove the non-union safety representatives? How do you then view the consequence that we will have even more workplaces without local safety representatives?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I begin by answering the questions, even though I think it is strange that the Minister of State asks questions to the interpellants. But that is, of course, how it must be done.

First and foremost, the criticism that the government gave Arbetsmiljöverket the assignment did not come from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, or any other politicians. It was within the collective trade union movement that people became enormously worried and drew the conclusion that it is the first step towards wanting to separate all safety representatives from the trade union movement and thereby make them weaker. In the long run, this would result in the work on the work environment at our workplaces suffering. It is up to the government to prove that it does not intend to separate the safety representatives from the trade union movement. We have to wait and see what the government will do in this matter.

The Social Democrats do not want to change the regulatory framework for safety representatives, but we want people to look at how safety representatives in the workplaces can be strengthened so that we get good safety representatives who have support from a trade union movement and who have the knowledge required for the assignment.

The Minister also speaks of raising ambitions in the work against crime in the workplace. The problem is that resources are not being added to the extent required to be able to raise ambitions and step up the work. It is positive that the work was taken further by establishing the a-krim centers that we began during our government's term. But it is up to be proven. If one speaks of raised ambitions, one must perhaps also look at how to ensure that it is actually possible to inspect more workplaces and step up the work against crime in the workplace.

As a result of the work environment strategy, which the interpellation concerns, we Social Democrats during our government's period saw to it that a number of issues were investigated and looked at. This includes, among other things, that which the Minister himself raises: how, from an equality perspective, the rules could be changed and strengthened to ensure that the protection is equally strong for men and women in the labor market.

Now, a number of documents and proposals from the investigations have been presented. The government could proceed with these and be able to strengthen the preventive work environment work. It is about expanded possibilities for sanctions, which I have spoken about previously. The companies that do not manage the systematic, preventive work environment work and that do not work to prevent people from becoming stressed and having a high workload at the workplace shall be punished for it and have to face the consequences of not managing what they are supposed to.

We also want to strengthen the law on occupational health care. There are proposals for expanded employer responsibility. There should be no doubt as to who has the responsibility to create a safe and secure workplace. There are also proposals for a confidentiality-breaking rule, so that the authorities can cooperate much better. We have also proposed expanded access rights for regional safety representatives.

There is no lack of proposals. But the question is why not a single one of these proposals is included on the list of legislative proposals that the government plans to submit during the year. It can, of course, be that one thinks the proposals are bad. But what does the government want to do then?

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not understand why Paulina Brandberg is starting to talk about making changes to what is said in the Work Environment Act regarding safety representatives. The Work Environment Act states that they are usually appointed by the trade union organization but that it is not a requirement. Perhaps Paulina Brandberg could read a bit more there.

Again: There are no obstacles to a safety representative being appointed anyway. But the most common thing, of course, is that it is the trade union organization at the workplace that appoints a safety representative, because that is the easiest way to do it. Then one has the trust of one's colleagues, and it is they who report in. It is also the joint-party organizations that conduct the training in better working environment, bam, and so on.

But if we are now going to talk about legislation, I am curious if Minister Paulina Brandberg wants to change the trust representative act so that even those safety representatives who do not belong to a trade union organization shall also be appointed according to the trust representative act. Can one even do that? If one is not appointed in a position of trust by a trade union organization or one's colleagues – how can one then be covered by the trust representative act?

I see that the Minister has deep furrows in her brow. We shall see what she answers to this.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! We have been informed that there is a series of ready-made proposals that the Social Democratic government handed over to this government at the Ministry of Employment. They are fully investigated. There is a series of proposals to start acting on. The strategy exists, as do a series of measures and investigations, just as the interpellor presented earlier. Still, the only thing we hear from the Minister is that something shall be done about this with full force.

I wonder what is meant when one says "with full force." We see no proposals on the table of the Riksdag. A list of government bills was submitted where the government announces what it will do during the year and this term. None of these proposals are included there.

Is the government tackling both the preventive and the more acute work with full force, considering how many people die at Sweden's workplaces? Thousands of people fall ill from their jobs. The government deals with it by submitting empty lists of propositions and proposals. I think it seems quite paralyzed.

Does the government know what they want to do in these issues? Does the Minister know what she wants? It is very non-specific. I think it is time for the government and the Minister to become concrete. What is to be done? What does she want? When will it happen?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I can say that the government is currently, in concrete terms, expanding and improving cross-agency cooperation. Solving these problems, and above all, reaching those actors who make money at the expense of workers' health and safety and who cut back on safety work to increase profits while the workers pay the price, is incredibly highly prioritized by the government.

To achieve this, better cross-agency cooperation is needed. Above all, we need to tear down the secrecy barriers. It is hoped that the government will soon be able to pass this in the Swedish Riksdag, so that a functioning exchange of information between agencies can take place.

Member of the Board Weidby noted that I furrowed my brow during her speech. That was because I did not recognize what she said in relation to my previous speech. I have not claimed that the government wants to change the Work Environment Act or the Representative Act when it comes to safety representatives and how they are appointed. On the contrary, the mandate to the Swedish Work Environment Authority is formulated so that it shall take place within the current regulatory framework. It states explicitly in the mandate that the Swedish Work Environment Authority shall not submit any proposals for legislative amendments.

I am curious and also pose this question to the Social Democrats and the interpellor. It is true that there have been allegations that the government wants to cut the ties between the unions and the safety representatives. But if one reads the preamble in the government's decision, one sees that that is not the question. We have said that we want to look objectively at how the local safety representatives can become more numerous - both the union and the non-union ones.

The Social Democrats took no initiative to address the problem that more and more workplaces are left without local safety representatives, but I would still like to ask. I wonder if the Social Democrats think it was a bad idea to give such a mandate, but if they had done it – had they then formulated it in such a way that non-union safety representatives were excluded from such mandates? Why would one have done that in that case? Is it not better to look at how the number of safety representatives can increase, generally?

We are, of course, talking here about our responsibility as politicians. We have a huge responsibility. But I want to take this opportunity to say that for this work to function, many actors must take their responsibility.

I spoke the other day with a representative from Eskilstuna's municipal real estate company. They are working on conducting unannounced inspections on their own construction sites themselves. I mean that several such initiatives are needed and more employers who also take greater responsibility to increase safety at Swedish workplaces. I do not want to diminish my own responsibility in any way, but we must be many in society who share it.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says that the government is concretely working to sharpen the fight against crime against the working life and to strengthen the joint work between authorities. They want to present the question of confidentiality barriers. But what prevents the Minister and the government from putting that proposal on the list? It is ready. There is a proposal that could be placed on the floor of the Riksdag.

When it comes to safety representatives, we actually submitted a proposal for expanded access rights for regional safety representatives as part of the solution for workplaces that are without safety representatives. It is a way to solve the problem.

I am positive if one can ensure that more people can become safety representatives and that more people want to remain as safety representatives. But I believe it is a matter of strengthening the safety representatives.

The government and the Council of State could perhaps have curbed the criticism that arose in connection with submitting the assignment to the Work Environment Authority by speaking with the parties before submitting such a proposal. Then, one could have calmed them and explained what it is that one wants to do. History tells us that this is what several of the government parties actually want to do. That has been stated here in the chamber of the Riksdag earlier.

I would, of course, have wished that I had more time and that we had had a Social Democratic government that could have continued the work with the strategy and the proposals that are now on the table, but that is not the case. I am the first to regret it, but because we Social Democrats believe it is obvious that more needs to be done to improve the working environment in the workplaces, we will, of course, continue to push the government. There will probably be more such debates. We will continue to demand that the government acts and that they put proposals on the Riksdag's table. Swedish wage earners deserve a government that takes the problem seriously.

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! We agree on quite a lot in this debate, but I will not agree that it is to be regretted that we do not have a Social Democratic government.

This government takes these issues very seriously. I might think it feels a bit absurd when this government is accused of not allocating sufficient resources. Much of the problems we have in the labor market are due to a shadow society being allowed to spread across the Swedish labor market as it has been penalty-free to conduct such activities. Far too many unserious companies have been able to outcompete the serious companies by committing crimes against Swedish legislation in a way that they should be punished for and that our authorities should have better conditions to prosecute. This government has made no secret of the fact that we are moving forward with crushing the crime that has spread in our society and removing the shadow society. We see what effects it has within our working life.

When it comes to the parties, our Swedish model is such that many have pieces of the puzzle in this work. The Swedish government absolutely supports dialogue, not just for the sake of a stroke of luck but continuously during the work. I can reassure all those involved in this debate that that type of dialogue is conducted continuously in several different forums, and so it will of course continue to take place. However, this government argues that it is important to specifically listen to the problems of the past month.

Answers to interpellations

I thank you for the debate. I hope and believe that we will continue to discuss these issues in the chamber moving forward.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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