Response to interpellation 2023/24:463 on the unemployment insurance fund
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that a well-functioning unemployment insurance is an important transition insurance that functions as an automatic stabilizer 1. L wants a more purposeful, simplified and efficient insurance based on income to strengthen the work line 1. L argues that the proposed tapering strengthens the incentives for job seekers to find new work 1. L wants more people to be covered by the insurance 2 3. L believes that the current reform is a strong and good a-kassa 4. L argues that the unemployment insurance is for when there are no jobs 4. S argues that the government's proposal makes it less fat to be unemployed 5 6. S believes that unemployment is something one is struck by, not something one chooses 6. S questions how reduced unemployment insurance can reduce unemployment 5. S argues that the government's policy goes directly against the sick and the unemployed 6. S believes that the government's policy is based on a weaker a-kassa to create incentives to seek work.
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! Patrik Björck has asked me if I and the government intend to present proposals that improve the unemployment insurance so that those affected by unemployment can feel secure. Patrik Björck has also asked if a strong unemployment insurance is part of the government's labor market policy.
I would like to state initially that I share Patrik Björck's opinion that a well-functioning unemployment insurance is important. The unemployment insurance has a central role in labor market policy as a transition insurance. The unemployment insurance shall provide financial support for a limited period to the person who has lost their job and is transitioning to another job.
A functioning unemployment insurance also acts as an automatic stabilizer that maintains individuals' purchasing power and domestic purchasing power during economic fluctuations.
It is no secret that I and the rest of the government consider that today's unemployment insurance needs to become more purposeful and in a better way contribute to the transition between jobs. The administration also needs to be simplified. The unemployment insurance also needs to effectively counteract incorrect payments. Therefore, the government has recently decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding an unemployment insurance based on income. Through an income-based unemployment insurance, we strengthen the work line. Everyone who can work shall work. It is the foundation for our common welfare and the individual's own empowerment.
With the new unemployment insurance, economic security is made possible for more people, which makes me both proud and happy. The proposals in the Government Offices' referral imply a more modern, simplified and efficient unemployment insurance, which facilitates things for both individuals, entrepreneurs and funds.
The unemployment insurance is and shall continue to be a transition insurance that provides financial compensation during transition between jobs. As a job seeker, one has a responsibility not to remain in unemployment for too long. For this reason, it is important that the unemployment insurance actually functions as the transition insurance it is intended to be. With the clearer and more uniform tapering proposed in the Council on Legislation's referral, the incentives for job seekers to find a new job are strengthened. In this way, more can move from unemployment to employment.
A proposal for a new law on unemployment insurance is planned to be submitted to the Riksdag during 2024, and the new regulatory framework is proposed to be introduced on 1 October 2025. Furthermore, the government intends to also decide on regulatory amendments. This concerns, among other things, the activity support, where the government also intends to strengthen the transition principle and raise the minimum level of the compensation.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Johan Pehrson has become known for a statement on labor market policy and unemployment insurance which goes out on that it is too "fat" to be unemployed. The time Johan Pehrson expressed this, it was linked to the shortage of train drivers. Johan Pehrson had found out that there was a shortage of train drivers and linked this to that it was too fat to be unemployed. It is, even for someone who is not so well-versed in labor market policy and causal relationships, a very strange connection.
Johan Pehrson, Madam Speaker, received justified criticism for this very strange and even disparaging statement about those who are unemployed. In response to this, Johan Pehrson sent a link to Arbetsförmedlingen for those who want to apply for a job. In response to that tweet, Johan Pehrson was informed that it is not that too few are applying for jobs, but that there have been up to 1,000 applicants for about thirty places in the truck driver training. Then one wonders how it fits together for the person responsible for the labor market policy that it is too "fat" to be unemployed when over 1,000 people applied for 30 places.
Here it is, Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that there is a dividing line between bourgeois and social democratic labor market policy. Johan Pehrson, who for the second year now is responsible for this policy, has in principle done nothing to make it easier for people to educate themselves for the jobs that exist on the labor market, despite the fact that we have high unemployment.
When Johan Pehrson now wakes up at the Ministry of Employment and manages to get a referral to the Council on Legislation sent out, which may eventually lead to a government bill, it is not about how to educate more people or give more unemployed people the chance to seek a job. Instead, it is – must I still interpret it as such and I believe we can agree on, Johan Pehrson – about making it less comfortable to be unemployed. If the referral to the Council on Legislation results in a government bill and it, God forbid, is passed here in the Riksdag, it will indeed become less comfortable to be unemployed. Johan Pehrson could now, in his answer to me, possibly explain what the causal link looks like between a reduced unemployment insurance and reduced unemployment.
Furthermore, it becomes a very strange argument because Johan Pehrson in his answer quite rightly asserts that the unemployment insurance also plays a role as an automatic stabilizer. But if Johan Pehrson then, in a recession, destroys – lowers and worsens – the unemployment insurance and makes it less lucrative to be unemployed, he also destroys the automatic stabilizer that he refers to in his answer.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is important to have good access to education if one ends up in unemployment. The Government is now adding a historically large number of places.
I say it again: Post-pandemic has been debated before. With a pandemic, it is chaos and catastrophe sometimes. Now we have a situation where, thank goodness, we do not have a pandemic. We are now adding amounts of new educational places to the vocational college and the vocational adult education. It is important. We must ensure that people educate themselves for the jobs that actually exist. That is where the very important and difficult mission of train drivers can belong.
There are more places than those Patrik Björck refers to. It is clearly evident if one speaks with the vocational college. Furthermore, there are amounts of companies that offer education in exchange for salary because they see these needs.
Labor market policy does not consist solely of what Patrik Björck thinks of, or what Johan Pehrson thinks of, for that matter. It is also about what the companies themselves do to increase attraction and get people into their important operations. There is a large number of different companies that, with paid training, offer people new jobs.
We have expanded, so there are now more train driver trainings. At one point, there was a discussion about a shortage of train drivers, but there were actually, at that very time, still a few available spots, which one can see if one goes back and looks. Then things were claimed, if now Patrik Björck devotes his life to looking at Twitter. One should probably not do that too much, because then one can be hit by all sorts of problems. I have come to this realization through various doctors and psychologists. Not even politicians should look too much at Twitter, actually. That about this!
We are expanding vocational training centrally, we have companies that themselves attract new employees with paid training, and now we are reforming the unemployment insurance. It must be remembered that this was an investigation commissioned by the Socialdemokraterna with a significantly forward-looking attitude. We thought that this was important and right and that we need to have a strong fund at a high entry point, that it should be a fair and straight tapering that is the same for everyone, and that it also does not harm that one raises the lowest level for those who enter the guarantees – a period during which the person can enter and receive compensation against activity on the day the unemployment insurance ends.
The tapering off that exists is something that the investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats came up with and that was applauded and considered very welcome. It surprises me that the Socialdemokrater think that the tapering off that exists now regarding unemployment insurance is wrong in some way. It is well-researched that it is important that there is a high compensation at the beginning and that one ensures that people get time to transition. Then a successive tapering off occurs during the period the person has a-kassa.
An important part of this new and strong unemployment insurance is also that more people are covered, so that people who have worked intensively for a shorter period are not excluded. More people get the right to unemployment insurance. I think that is a very good policy.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! For those listening, I shall explain that I wrote the interpellation before Johan Pehrson had his press conference where he presented this Government Bill, but I cannot claim that the interpellation becomes any less relevant or important because of that.
What I am asking Johan Pehrson about is the view on the role of unemployment insurance in the labor market. Johan Pehrson has expressed very strongly that there are too few truck drivers for it to be "fat" to be unemployed. This perception, which reflects a classic bourgeois policy and reflects the policy of the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, was expressed very strongly by Johan Pehrson. Therefore, I ask Johan Pehrson if we can agree: Do the proposals put forward in the Council on Legislation referral – which we hope will not be accepted by this chamber – make it less "fat" or more "fat" to be unemployed?
Madam Speaker! I have interpreted the proposal from Johan Pehrson as him proceeding on his line of making it less profitable to be unemployed in order to thereby solve the labor market policy challenges. Here, Johan Pehrson and I do not agree.
It is a bit exciting that Johan Pehrson suddenly starts talking about educational places. Not a word was mentioned about this when Johan Pehrson made this statement. It is extremely important to remember.
Madam Speaker! Then a follow-up question. Johan Pehrson expressed his bourgeois view that the size of unemployment is linked to the design of the unemployment insurance to the extent that if one has a strong and well-functioning a-kassa, unemployment is high, and if one worsens the a-kassa, unemployment falls. This is the logic in Johan Pehrson's argument. Then my question to Johan Pehrson is: Now that the government's policy has caused healthcare workers, construction workers, and forestry workers to become unemployed, does it mean that this also depends on the far too fat unemployment insurance? We have, in fact, today the same unemployment insurance as when there was a shortage of train drivers.
Today, healthcare workers and construction workers are being laid off, and small business owners in the construction industry are going bankrupt and registering for the small business unemployment insurance. Is that one also too fat? Is that why the small businesses are going bankrupt?
How does Johan Pehrson view the connection between a well-functioning unemployment insurance fund and unemployment? This is the crux of the matter, and this is what lies behind this interpellation. When Johan Pehrson then presents the proposals in the referral to the Council of Legislation at a press conference, he is merely putting on a show, Madam Speaker – he is worsening the unemployment insurance fund.
From Johan Pehrson's bourgeois starting point, this is naturally logical. But for a social democrat, it is completely illogical. A social democrat knows that unemployment is not something one chooses but something one is struck by. Johan Pehrson and his comrades in the bourgeoisie believe that one chooses to be sick because the health insurance is too fat. We social democrats know that illness is something one is struck by, and then one should also receive support when one becomes ill. That is the fundamental difference in politics.
Johan Pehrson, his government and the Sverigedemokraterna are going directly against the sick and the unemployed - in this case, it concerns the unemployment insurance.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is easy enough to talk, but what is the actual situation regarding what one stands for? The Social Democrats are appointing an inquiry. It is noted that one constantly stands behind the inquiry's proposals, and one puts as much into one's own budget as the government does on the unemployment insurance. Furthermore, one refers to this inquiry and writes that one wants to reform the insurance, this important transition insurance, in accordance with the inquiry.
One writes this because it is good; it is because it is a good investigation that has received very strong support from the referral bodies, which has strong support in the research and which has strong support in the empirical evidence. In the entire developed Western world, it appears that one has a strong unemployment insurance fund that covers many, with a high compensation at the beginning which is then scaled down somewhat, just as it does today.
The Social Democrats write that this is good, that the investigation is good and that they want to carry it out. But when a proposal then arrives, they are still going to be against it.
The government thinks it is an important reform that ensures more people enter the unemployment insurance fund and more are covered. It also becomes easier to manage. The unemployment insurance funds are cheering, and the entrepreneurs are cheering. It becomes simpler to counter fraud and errors. It is a clear support for an important transition insurance that supports people. We are raising the ceiling, and we are also raising the floor if one has fallen into the guarantees. Why then? Yes, because it is an important part of the Swedish labor market policy.
But it is not the only one. The absolutely most important labor market policy instruments are to bring down inflation, build up an energy system, arm Sweden, and ensure that we have good conditions for Sweden's small, medium-sized, and large companies so that people get jobs, tax revenues increase, and more people can be employed in healthcare and school. That is how Sweden becomes strong. That is the most important policy.
It is also about holding on during difficult times. There is no question that it is difficult for the person affected by the news that they are part of a layoff or become unemployed because the company could not cope with the deferred taxes it received a reprieve on during the pandemic. It was no longer possible when the economy faltered and energy prices skyrocketed. It is obviously difficult. But in that case, we have and shall have a strong unemployment insurance where more people are entitled to a-kassa.
The Social Democrats thought this was good until recently, but now they think it is bad. It is good to have a strong opposition, but it would be good if it stuck to its own and occasional very wise opinions and did not change them just because the government adopts the same.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! It is truly words and more words but no answers to questions. The question is whether the proposals for the unemployment insurance fund that the government presents make the fund fatter or thinner. Does it become better or worse? The government's view is that a worse unemployment insurance fund is good labor market policy; Johan Pehrson has clearly expressed this. It is important to remember that.
Johan Pehrson is discussing the investigation, but my interpellation is not about it. There are many proposals in the investigation that are very good and that I would absolutely stand behind. But I am discussing whether the government's labor market policy is based on a strong or weak unemployment insurance. Johan Pehrson has repeatedly expressed that the government's policy should be based on a weaker unemployment insurance. It is the incentives that should get people to seek jobs, says Johan Pehrson.
Johan Pehrson's reasoning is totally illogical and does not hold together. Now Johan Pehrson has one last opportunity to answer whether it is correct to perceive Johan Pehrson's policy in such a way that if people receive worse compensation during unemployment, unemployment decreases. Johan Pehrson claims completely illogically that this is well-researched. It is not true; it is definitely not well-researched. Research points rather to it yielding weakly positive results with a strong unemployment insurance fund and definitely not worse labor market policy results. This, however, is not the strange thing, but that Johan Pehrson contradicts himself. If it is well-researched that conservative labor market policy and a poor unemployment insurance fund lower unemployment, is it that policy that the Sverigedemokraterna and Johan Pehrson will pursue?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! We are now implementing a reform that has been ordered and investigated by the Social Democrats. In their motions, the Social Democrats refer to it as good and correct policy to raise the ceiling, ensure that more people enter the unemployment insurance fund, and raise the floor for those who, for various reasons, have been unemployed for a very long time. I consider it to be a strong and good unemployment insurance fund. What Patrik Björck now thinks about it compared to when the Social Democrats wrote their motions on the subject not so long ago, he must answer. I cannot clarify that.
What Patrik Björck perhaps finds troublesome is that my labor market policy is based on the fact that one must be prepared to take the available jobs that exist. The unemployment insurance funds do not say that you as an unemployed person do not need to do anything if there are available jobs. One must be prepared to take an available job in the neighboring municipality. One must be prepared to move within Sweden, something we Swedes have done for thousands of years. One must be prepared to take a job somewhere else in the country, if it is possible for family reasons. One must also be prepared to broaden one's area of competence. If an activity is narrow and has disappeared from the place where one lives, one must be prepared to educate oneself and take another job. My government has given these requirements to Arbetsförmedlingen on behalf of, among others, those who inspect and control how the labor market policy and the unemployment insurance funds function.
The unemployment insurance is for when there are no jobs. It is not for people not to work when there are jobs.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.