Response to interpellation 2023/24:42 on the assignment that more people should want to engage as safety representatives
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the assignment to Arbetsmiljöverket does not involve constitutional changes or that the employer can appoint safety representatives 1. L emphasizes that the workers' organizations' right to appoint safety representatives is unchanged and that the government wants to address the shortage of safety representatives 1 2. L defends the Swedish labor market model and wants to identify factors that make more people want to become safety representatives without changing the rules of the game 2 3 4. V argues that the government is opening the door to changing the order where safety representatives are regulated by the unions 5 and wants to weaken the connection between unions and safety representatives 6 7. S argues that the unions are concerned that the assignment is a first step towards separating the safety representatives from the unions 8. S argues that safety representatives need union support to dare to demand things from the employer 8 9. S does not want to change the legislation but argues that L and SD want to weaken the safety representatives' rights and criticizes the government for a lack of dialogue with the unions 10. S considers that the government does not distinguish between unionized and non-unionized safety representatives 10 and that the government is not listening to the unions' concerns 11. S argues that the government has not taken enough initiatives to improve the situation 11.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Ciczie Weidby has asked me if I intend to work for the legislation to be changed so that local safety representatives shall, as a rule, be appointed by the employees at a workplace and not, as is the case today, by the local employee organization which is or usually is bound by collective agreements towards the employer.
Ciczie Weidby has also asked me if I have considered taking other measures to make more employees than today want to engage as safety representatives, such as improved conditions for and the right to education, further education, and continuing education.
Finally, Ciczie Weidby has asked me how I view the risks that the government's mandate to Arbetsmiljöverket ultimately entails in the form of safety representatives being appointed by the employer.
I would like to start by thanking Ciczie Weidby for the commitment to the issue. I am convinced that we share the view that safety representatives play a very important role in effective work environment work for safe and secure workplaces.
The Government gave Arbetsmiljöverket the assignment on 14 September 2023 to submit proposals that can lead to more employees wanting to engage in the role of safety representative. The assignment shall be reported by 30 April 2024 at the latest.
The background to the assignment is the worrying development that involves more and more employees working at workplaces that lack safety representatives. An important link in effective local work environment work is therefore that more people take the step to engage as safety representatives and that more people want to stay longer in the role of safety representative. Today, there are too many workplaces that lack safety representatives. It follows that there are too many workplaces where there is a high risk of deficiencies in the important work of identifying risks for work-related ill health, fatal accidents, and other serious accidents.
I want to return to the importance of the broad engagement in the issue and to the positive aspect of Ciczie Weidby raising the status of safety representatives to debate here in the chamber today, but it is important that the debate is conducted based on a correct factual basis. The full assignment is on the government's website. Anyone who reads the entire text sees that it explicitly appears that it is not included in the assignment to submit proposals for constitutional amendments. The assignment therefore does not involve any change to the employees' organizations' right, with the support of the Work Environment Act, to appoint safety representatives.
The assignment also does not involve any shift that would mean that safety representatives can be appointed by the employer. According to the Work Environment Act (1977:1166), safety representatives are, in principle, always appointed by the local employees' organization that is or usually is bound by a collective agreement in relation to the employer. But it also explicitly appears from the Work Environment Act that safety representatives in certain cases can be appointed directly by the employees. There is no legal requirement that a safety representative must be a member of an employees' organization.
According to the assignment, Arbetsmiljöverket shall during the implementation conduct a dialogue with the parties in the labor market and other social actors that the authority deems relevant. I look forward to taking part in the results of this work and Arbetsmiljöverket's reporting of the assignment.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers, even though I may not perceive them as being that very clear.
In the assignment, the government writes that measures need to be taken so that more workers today will want to engage as safety representatives, regardless of whether the safety representatives or the workers have a trade union affiliation or not. I may think that the Minister responded somewhat mockingly to my interpellation, Madam Speaker. She mentioned that it is important that the debate is carried out based on a correct factual basis and implies that I have not read the entire text, which is apparently supposed to be very clear. But I think it is not just me who interprets the government in a different way.
I think it is difficult to interpret this in any other way than that the government is opening the door to changing the order we have now, that is to say that safety representatives are usually appointed by the local workers' organization. And as said, it is not just me - it is the entire trade union movement. It is LO, it is TCO and it is Saco, and they view this with great concern. They have even written an open letter to Paulina Brandberg, and I hope she has opened that letter. The investigation also receives criticism from Maria Steinberg, who is an associate professor in occupational health and safety law and one of Sweden's absolute leading occupational health experts.
It is, however, good that we share the concern over safety representatives, because it is serious that people do not want to take on assignments as safety representatives. In the LO unions, over 12,000 safety representatives have disappeared in eight years, and that is, of course, a catastrophe. Then one can reflect on what it is due to. In my industry, for example, commerce, I think it very often is about people having insecure employment and that the level of organization is low. That perhaps makes one not dare to take an assignment, because one does not want to be perceived as inconvenient in any way and thus perhaps not be called in for more shifts. Another explanation is that many companies have fewer and fewer employees, which also reduces the trade union activity.
Another explanation is that many safety representatives are threatened, harassed, and prevented from carrying out their assignments at quite a few workplaces around the country. It has simply become tougher for the safety representatives. Furthermore, the employers think it is a task that should not take much time. It is very rare that they have an understanding of the ongoing work that a safety representative does; many think that it is enough for the safety representative to participate in the safety rounds, and then it is, so to speak, done.
Just so we can continue the debate: If it is the case that we are worried about this and want more people to want to be safety representatives, one could look at some other things. One could look at all these insecure and precarious employments that cause people not to dare to demand anything regarding their work environment. One could also improve the legislation that already exists so that safety representatives have greater rights to education, further education, and continuing education. It is also, of course, about ensuring that more are trade union engaged, which one could put more energy into – for example by introducing tax deductibility for union fees and so on.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister says here in the chamber that the assignment to Arbetsmiljöverket does not involve any change to the employees' organizations' right to appoint safety representatives. But why is the trade union movement as a whole still worried—so worried that it writes an open letter to the Minister?
Obviously, the unions interpret the assignment as a first step towards separating safety representatives from the unions. Why is such an interpretation being made? As recently as the spring of 2022, the Liberals submitted their proposal on how they - as they called it - want to modernize the safety representative regulation. It is written in their party motion as follows: "The main rule for the local safety representatives should no longer be that they shall be appointed by the local workers' organizations but as a rule by the employees." Even the Sweden Democrats, who are part of the government base, have been clear that they want the same legislative change as the Liberals.
The Minister does not answer the question asked. Will the Minister work to ensure that safety representatives are not appointed by the union at the workplace? Or have the Liberals changed their opinion on the matter? In that case, it would be a welcome announcement. I intended to ask if the Minister can calm the collective trade union movement's concern by providing such an announcement today.
It is quite unusual for the entire collective trade union movement, from academics to workers, to react so clearly and together write an open letter to a minister. One can then ask why this is such an important issue. That is understood if one reads the letter that was sent to Paulina Brandberg. There, the unions describe what support they provide to safety representatives. The importance of that support is a prerequisite for you as a safety representative to be able to be tough when required and demand things from the employer, because you know that if there is a conflict or if you are hindered in your mission, the union will back you up.
Trade unions provide safety representatives with security in terms of education, advice and support in disputes with employers. But if a safety representative who does not have a trade union organization behind them is hindered in their mission, then nothing happens – or something could happen if the safety representative themselves has the resources and the courage to take their own employer to district court.
An unorganized safety representative has much poorer conditions to do a good job, regardless of how knowledgeable she is, and must rely entirely on the employer's goodwill to prioritize safety measures over perhaps a slightly higher profit. The working environment at our workplaces becomes worse if the safety representatives do not dare to set demands or stop the work when there is a risk to life and health. It doesn't matter how many safety representatives we have if they do not have the power to represent their colleagues and if they are left alone when they end up in conflict with the employer.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I thought I would tell a little bit about what it means to be a safety representative, to stand up, to drive and to speak out. It requires very much today to be a safety representative out at our workplaces.
I myself come from the steel industry, and it is rarely the case that a workplace accident has a mild outcome. Many times, there are quite serious consequences of a workplace accident. If one does not have a secure employment or a trade union behind them that stands strong – or even if one does – it requires very much to be the person who stands there and says that we cannot continue production in this way or that we must redo it, that we must stop or that we must do it in a different way, when it leads to production loss, extra work, and causes problems in many other ways, both for colleagues and perhaps for the company in the end. It requires very much. Then we need strong, well-equipped safety representatives who know exactly what they are doing and who have just that power behind them to do what is required in that moment.
It is far from all employers around our country who think that the work environment and safety are the most important thing right in the heat of the moment in the middle of production and who think that they should obviously do what the safety representative is now saying. They are many times eager and have other priorities in sight and wonder if that is really necessary and if one cannot cut some corners. When it is the employer who says it, the employer that I am employed by - then it is not easy.
It is absolutely important that we have many safety representatives. But we also need to ensure that we have strong safety representatives, who know what they are doing, who have attended training, who have experience, and who have done things repeatedly. This is also something we need to take with us. It also takes time, and it requires a lot from both employers and trade union organizations to equip and arm the safety representatives.
But here, the government has given this assignment to an agency without turning to the parties in the labor market. I think that is to undervalue the parties and short-circuit our model of social dialogue. Why is the assignment not given to the parties or for a dialogue with them? I cannot interpret it as having held a dialogue with the parties when, after having assigned this task, one immediately receives a letter.
My question is therefore: Have the parties requested from the government or the Council of State that the assignment be given to an agency? Has it been requested? I think perhaps the Council of State should take the opportunity to be clear before us here in the chamber and give the promise that we do not need to be worried, that no trade union, no safety representative needs to be worried that any legislative proposals or legislative amendments will be put on the table during this mandate period. Then perhaps the concern would be calmed.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by repeating that the issues we are discussing here today are issues that truly deserve to be debated, and I welcome this interpellation. I also think it is very positive that there is a broad consensus on the important work of the safety representatives for safe and secure workplaces.
The interpellator claims that I am standing here and being defiant in this chamber. That is not my intention at all. However, I cannot help but be very confounded, and I am still confounded. I believe it is very important that we go back to the facts. In this assignment, which the government has given Arbetsmiljöverket and which is on the government's website, it states clearly and distinctly that this is an assignment to be carried out within the framework of current regulations. This means, therefore, that the workers' organizations' right to appoint safety representatives with the support of the Work Environment Act remains unchanged.
I do not believe that any of the participants in this debate have missed that the vast majority of safety representatives today are appointed via the unions and are union-affiliated. It is also a fact that there are also other safety representatives today who are not appointed by the unions.
The government has identified a problem, namely that we have too few local safety representatives. We believe it is a problem that we have too many workplaces that lack local safety representatives. We also view with concern the trend that shows we have fewer and fewer people engaging as local safety representatives. This is a problem that the government feels we need to do something about. We cannot sit idly by while this continues. This is the background to the assignment that we have given to Arbetsmiljöverket.
I wonder if the debaters would like to change the law to prohibit safety representatives who are not union-affiliated. When listening to the interpellator and the other debaters, it appears that it is in that direction that they want to go. In that case, I would think it would be positive to have clear language on this issue.
I also question the following: If the government now gives a broad mandate to Arbetsmiljöverket that covers all safety representatives, do the interpellator and the other debaters then consider that the government instead explicitly prevents Arbetsmiljöverket from looking at the situation for certain safety representatives? It would in that case also have been interesting information to receive.
The Government safeguards the Swedish labor market model and considers it important to involve the parties in all issues concerning the work environment and safety work in our workplaces. It is also for this reason that it appears from this assignment that Arbetsmiljöverket will carry out this assignment and have contact with the labor market parties in order to be able to carry it out in the best possible way.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for this. I received some questions which I will, of course, answer. Then I intend to ask some questions.
I have many years of experience as an elected safety representative. I do not in any way demand that the minister should possess the same experience. One can absolutely have opinions on various issues that one does not have personal experience of. But it is good if one knows what it means to be a safety representative and what is included in this assignment.
Of course, safety representatives shall be elected with the confidence of their colleagues. The safety representative shall not be elected with the confidence of a manager or anyone else, but with the confidence of the colleagues. In that case, it is usually the trade union organization, as it is that which organizes the workers at a workplace.
I absolutely cannot speak for the others who have been up in the speaker's chair. But I have not heard anyone else who thinks that one should change this and prohibit it in some way.
What I perceive Paulina Brandberg is missing is why one, as a safety representative, should specifically be elected by an organization. It is because one is then covered by the representative law. If one is not covered by the representative law, one does not have the right to leave for training, and one does not have a secure employment if the boss thinks one is difficult. According to the representative law, one cannot be dismissed because one is a difficult safety representative.
I must therefore bounce this back to the Minister and ask if she perhaps intends that some legislation might need to be changed. Or should the safety representatives be defenseless - lawless?
One might wonder why I say that safety representatives should be appointed by the boss, since the Minister has never said that. No, but at workplaces where there are no unions, the employer's power becomes quite unrestricted, and then it may be the boss who appoints a safety representative. Then it may become difficult to point out different risks and problems in working life, and especially if the safety representative does not have protection in the law and from organizations.
As some have previously pointed out, it is not so surprising or strange that the government wants to find different ways to weaken trade union organizations. Here in the Riksdag, it is primarily the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats who most want to join forces with those who want to worsen and completely remove the rights that currently exist for safety representatives.
Paulina Brandberg says in the next breath that the government indeed wants to defend the Swedish labor market model and the party system because it is so incredibly important. But that safety representatives are appointed by the union is the Swedish model. It is part of the Swedish model that it is how we do it in our labor market model.
I must therefore ask the question: If one now wants to defend the Swedish model, why does one then appoint an inquiry that nevertheless aims to weaken the connection between unions and safety representatives?
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I will begin by answering the question. We Social Democrats do not want to change the legislation. But the fact is that the Liberals, Paulina Brandberg's own party, and the largest party in the government base, the Sweden Democrats, want to change the regulation on how safety representatives are appointed in a direction that makes them weaker.
The Minister has still not answered my question regarding whether she intends to act in this direction. But she has also not answered whether she has considered other measures so that more people can become safety representatives. Had the Minister had a dialogue with the unions before she handed over the assignment to the Work Environment Authority, I am completely convinced that they could have explained to the Minister how it works in the workplaces and could have provided tips on what is needed so that more people can become safety representatives. Organizing is something that the unions work on every day.
But we also know that the Minister has declined to meet several trade unions. And in light of the strong reaction from the collective trade union movement regarding the government's assignment to the Work Environment Authority, one can simply conclude that no dialogue has taken place in this matter.
Madam Speaker! It is extremely problematic that the government does not distinguish between, but instead equates, unionized and non-unionized safety representatives in its assignment to the authority, and by that means implies that it works just as well with either.
I really hope that the letter from LO, TCO and Saco has made the Minister rethink and that the unions in that way have succeeded in creating an understanding of how important the union support is for effective safety work and how important it is for us to strengthen skilled safety representatives who represent their colleagues without fear and who dare to make legitimate demands.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not think I hear any reassuring messages. I only hear the Minister saying that one should not be worried because this is not within the mandate. But obviously, it cannot have escaped the Minister that the worry exists. I think that one needs to listen to this and take this worry seriously. If it is unfounded, one should ensure to reassure instead. I do not think the Minister is doing that – not here and not earlier.
If the Minister wants to safeguard our party model, our Swedish model – she repeats several times that she considers it incredibly important – why then does one not turn to the labor market parties who know this, which several in this debate have witnessed? Why does one not turn to them and say: We need more safety representatives. What can we do to help you in this work? How do we strengthen the safety representatives' role?
Instead, they have to write open letters to the Minister to have their voices heard or read that one does not want to listen and that one is not interested in this type of dialogue.
It is not credible when the Minister says that one wants to safeguard the Swedish model and that one thinks our party model is important. It becomes very empty words, and I think the Minister is obliged to answer us. Will there not be any changes in the legislation during this parliamentary term? I think the Minister is obliged to answer. Will the safety representatives be strengthened instead of being weakened during this parliamentary term?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I feel that I need to repeat once more that the assignment that the government has given to Arbetsmiljöverket is about identifying the factors that could make more people want to engage as safety representatives. It is therefore not about changing the rules of the game on the labor market. On the contrary, it states explicitly in the government's decision that proposals for legislative changes are not to be prepared. Nevertheless, we are conducting a debate as if that were what was stated in the government's decision. It becomes strange to conduct a discussion around something that is not what the government has decided on.
I am also a bit perplexed by what the interpellator presents, where it is pointed out to me that safety representatives should not be chosen in confidence by their manager. I have not put forward anything of that sort, and neither has any other representative for the government. Neither I nor any other representative for the government has ever claimed that the non-union-affiliated safety representatives have the same protection as those appointed by the union.
It is correct, as the interpellator explained, that when it concerns those appointed by the union, the Act on Protection of Representatives (förtroendemannalagen) applies. On the other hand, other safety representatives are not completely unprotected. They are covered by the Work Environment Act. But it is obviously a weaker protection, and nothing else has been claimed by either me or anyone else from the government.
What makes me a bit thoughtful is that we all agree that it is concerning that more and more workplaces lack safety representatives. The Government sees the problem and is now taking this initiative to change this situation. We are giving Arbetsmiljöverket a broad mandate.
Sofia Amloh expressed criticism that we should not have asked the parties in the labor market what needs to be done to get more safety representatives. But if one reads the government's decision, one sees that it is precisely that we are tasking the Swedish Work Environment Authority to conduct a dialogue with the parties about. I can read aloud from the government decision: "Within the framework of the assignment, the Swedish Work Environment Authority shall conduct a dialogue with the parties in the labor market and other social actors that the authority deems relevant." What is being presented as criticism is that the government has not asked the parties, but it is therefore precisely what the government is tasking the Swedish Work Environment Authority to carry out.
To all of you in the red-green opposition - to the interpellator and to the members - who are critical of this assignment, I have a question. It is something I really wonder about. You held government power between 2014 and 2022. What initiatives did you take in government to ensure that more people would want to be safety representatives? If we share the view that it is a problem that there are too few safety representatives and you have just had the government power - what initiatives did you take to improve the situation? That is what I am very curious to hear.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking the Minister for an interesting debate. It is a very important subject.
On Wednesday, October 25, it is the safety representatives' day. That is when the intention is to acknowledge all the safety representatives who every day fight for their colleagues' right to health and safety at work. A majority of the safety representatives are members of the union and appointed by the union. I would like to take this opportunity to extend a warm thank you to all safety representatives. Thank you for your absolutely vital work!
I hope that many have taken part in this debate, because it shows that the government wants to open up for more unorganized safety representatives and weaken the connection between safety representatives and unions. Vänsterpartiet considers it to be completely the wrong way to go. We want to maintain the union's right of first refusal and improve the conditions for safety representatives to carry out their assignments. For us, it is clear that safety representatives should be members of the union and appointed by the union, because that provides strength and security.
If we are to have a sustainable working life where people can manage to work until retirement age without being worn out prematurely, the work environment work must be developed and strengthened, and in that case, the safety representatives' opportunities to act must also be improved. That being said, I hope and think that there will be more debates on this subject and that the Minister may next time want to invite more people to conversations on how we can get more people to become safety representatives.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I am also very pleased that we have this important debate, even though I think it is strange to have a debate that proceeds from the assumption that the government has made a decision that is not in the government decision. I can assure both the interpellator and the other debaters that this government is not particularly anxious about itself. If we want to implement a measure, we take exactly that measure, and if we write in a mandate that it does not include making any proposals for constitutional amendments, that is also what the government decides and nothing else.
What this government does, in contrast to the previous one, is that we are acting on the issue that there are too few safety representatives. We also see that it is necessary to identify the factors that govern this. Just as Member Amloh explained, there is a sense of insecurity for many safety representatives today. Threats and harassment affect safety representatives. They can feel insecurity regarding their own employment. These are factors that need to be identified in order to be removed and to hopefully result in more safety representatives. This is what the government wants to address. The government does not just talk about how important things are. We also act on them.
Finally, I would like to extend a thank you to the safety representatives, who perform incredibly important work at workplaces in Sweden every day. I would also like to thank the interpellator and the debaters for the debate. I look forward to continuing to discuss this issue on further occasions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.