Response to interpellation 2023/24:603 on unserious actors in the labor market
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that everyone who works in Sweden should have good working conditions and a safe working environment 1. L prioritizes the fight against labor-related crime 1 and argues that the Swedish model has good conditions to meet changes 1. L believes that the platform directive is crucial for clarifying employment status 2 and wants to investigate its implementation to improve the situation for platform workers 3. L wants to create opportunities for workers to organize by clarifying when someone should be considered an employee 3 and argues that the regulatory framework should be accurate 4. L plans to appoint an inquiry when the EU directive is finalized 4. S believes that gig workers are a vulnerable group with unclear employer responsibility 5. S argues that the Swedish model requires a higher degree of organization 5 6 and wants the government to do something to increase it 5. S argues that some companies deliberately stand outside the Swedish model 6 and expresses concern that the platform directive does not solve the problems 6. S wants people who pay F-tax to be reviewed to see if they are employees in practice 7 and wants more people to join a union and sign collective agreements 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me what I intend to do to ensure that so-called gig companies operate within the framework of the Swedish model. I would like to thank Adrian Magnusson for the question. It is an important question, and I share the member's commitment.
Everyone who works in Sweden shall have good working conditions and a safe working environment, regardless of the form of the work. Changes in working life affect how we work, but good working conditions and a high level of protection in the area of the working environment shall apply to everyone.
Unserious actors and labor market crime constitute a threat to Swedish companies, employees, and society as a whole. This creates great insecurity, distorts competition, and contributes to the criminal economy. The Government views this very seriously, and I want to emphasize that the Government prioritizes the work against labor market crime.
The Swedish labor market model's ability for rapid transition and adaptation means that Sweden has good conditions to meet the changes occurring in the labor market. That the parties take a great responsibility in the labor market and adapt the conditions according to the conditions in different industries is an important part of the Swedish model. This also applies to gig work.
For some years now, the Swedish Work Environment Authority has exercised special supervision of platform companies, among other things within the framework of an initiative on new ways of organizing work. The purpose has been to gain increased knowledge about the work environment where work is organized in new forms.
On March 11, 2024, the Council agreed on the so-called platform directive, an EU directive aimed at strengthening the rights of those who work via digital platforms while increasing clarity for platform companies. The directive is now being prepared for formal adoption. After that, it shall be implemented in the various member states.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister Brandberg, for the answer!
As the Minister himself points out, it is an important issue we are discussing here today. I share the Minister's view that everyone who works in Sweden should have good working conditions and a safe working environment, regardless of the form of the work. It should not matter whether one "gigs," as it is sometimes fashionably called, or has a temporary position, part-time employment, or permanent employment. This matter of having a secure and safe working life shall apply to everyone.
With that as a starting point, we can nevertheless state that if that had been the case, we would not have had this debate today. Then I would not have submitted the interpellation on how the government shall ensure that gig companies shall work according to the Swedish model.
The intention of the interpellation was not to list that which we have just established here. I truly hope that we are in agreement on that. It would have been highly remarkable if the Minister had said that a good working environment and secure jobs are not so important.
It is a very vulnerable group in some cases that we are talking about when we talk about gig work or platform work – whatever one wants to call it. It can be people who live a bit day to day and who are completely dependent on their own bicycle or moped to manage their livelihood, for example as food couriers. There, the employer's responsibility is very unclear, the insurance conditions are very vague and the working hours are somewhat arbitrary.
In addition, we should not talk about the risk that all food delivery riders are seen as some kind of second-class citizens. Unfortunately, there are many stories about food delivery riders who experience being stared at in restaurants and being seen as a nuisance when they step into the jackets they have received from the food delivery company.
Mr. Speaker! In his answer, the Minister highlights the work of the Swedish Work Environment Authority. That is good. They are doing important work and have taken a number of cases to court to try to determine whether the gig companies have a work environment and employer responsibility. So far, the responses from the courts have been denials.
Arbetsmiljöverket has also itself in reports stated that no employer relationship exists from the reviewed companies. It is possible that Arbetsmiljöverket has gained much more knowledge about the sector during these years – I hope so. But no change in the relationship between the platform workers and the so-called gig companies has been discernible. It is simply a matter of stating that.
The Platform Directive is also highlighted. The Government has built much of its work on platform work upon it. That can well be commendable, even though Swedish labor market policy is not usually built on regulatory frameworks from the European Union. I and the Social Democrats look forward, in any case, to seeing how the Platform Directive, when it is eventually implemented into Swedish law, will make life better for the platform workers. My hope is, after all, that is how it will happen. If that does not happen, it is a great failure.
Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the Minister brings up the Swedish labor market model in his response. Here too, I agree with the Minister; the Swedish labor market model has served us well regarding transition. But the Minister probably knows just as well as I do that the degree of organization among many of the vulnerable gig workers, such as food delivery couriers, is low.
The strength of the Swedish model is based on a high degree of affiliation, not only among employers but also among employees. But the collective agreement coverage is low even among the companies. It is not many of the gig companies that work with food couriers that have signed collective agreements. They are, in fact, vanishingly few.
But, as said, the Minister highlights the Swedish model in his answer. Does the Minister think the government can do something to increase both workers' and employers' rates of organization in order to, as the Minister himself expresses it, strengthen the conditions to meet the changes occurring in the Swedish labor market?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! The question of gig workers is important to discuss. This is a relatively new phenomenon, one might say, on the Swedish labor market and also something that we have seen increase very much in recent years, not least during the pandemic. It is very important that we adapt the map according to how reality looks today and not according to how it used to look. The measures we take must stem from all different types of work and forms of work that exist on the Swedish labor market, because we must have a functioning work environment effort everywhere.
When this government took office in October 2022, the negotiations on the platform directive were in full swing in the EU. From the Swedish government's side, we fought hard to get in wording to safeguard the Swedish model in the directive. For the Swedish government to be able to stand behind the directive, it was crucial that we got in that type of wording so that it became compatible with our labor market model. We were successful in that work. Then we took over the presidency in the EU, and in that role, it was very important for us to succeed in reaching a conclusion on this directive, now that we had succeeded in getting in these wordings.
During the spring of 2023, we had a hard task. We knew that the Czech presidency had failed to reach an agreement on a general direction in the Council of Ministers, but the Swedish presidency succeeded in this. We thus succeeded in getting in writings to safeguard the Swedish model, and we then succeeded in achieving a general direction in the Council of Ministers.
This directive is absolutely crucial when we talk about these issues. One of the things that is most central in the directive is what status the gig workers should be considered to have. Should they be self-employed, or should they be considered employees? This is of absolutely crucial importance when it comes to who is responsible for their working environment. And if they are to organize themselves, are they self-employed or employees? These are completely central questions. In order for us to be able to apply our existing regulatory frameworks, we must resolve these questions, and that is precisely what the platform directive focuses on.
Now only the so-called legal language review of this directive remains before it can hopefully be adopted in the near future. After that, the government will begin the work of implementing the directive into Swedish legislation, and then we will truly address these questions and see how we can work with them. How can we work with the issue of employment status so that it works on our labor market and we can thereby clarify where the responsibility lies? This is of course in favor of the employees, who receive strengthened protection, but also for those who are actually to be counted as employers when it becomes clear for the platform company which regulatory framework applies. Clarity serves everyone in this work.
I am therefore looking forward to being able to proceed with this work when this directive has eventually been adopted.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! When one talks about gig work, it is easy to end up in the extreme forms, where people truly suffer. It is about food delivery couriers and the like, who have an employer in practice but are simultaneously seen as self-employed. Of course, there are gig workers who want to be self-employed – we must remember that. It could be, for example, musicians who want to perform at a gig somewhere. It is not these people, who truly are self-employed, that this interpellation is about, but rather those people who in practice have an employer but nevertheless become some kind of self-employed. They suffer many times.
Can we ensure that the Swedish model really solves the problems that exist - the prevailing order in Sweden is that we let the parties handle this type of issue to a large extent - the degree of organization must increase. We must ensure that more people organize themselves unionally. We must also ensure that more employers sign collective agreements. Otherwise, we will never solve this issue.
Some of these companies unfortunately say openly: We do not want to be a part of the Swedish model; we see our business as something else, which complements the Swedish model. Then we have a problem – if very many companies in this country stand outside the model that we have collectively chosen since the Saltsjöbad Agreement to solve labor market issues. It is a model that has benefited us and benefited this country.
We are now facing other major transitions when it comes to, for example, artificial intelligence, where the Swedish model will also be completely crucial. If we start nibbling at the edges, we will suddenly discover many other problems that we need to handle.
I still want to take the time to talk about people in the gig sector, as those who want to be a bit trendy might call it. I can sometimes think that it becomes a bit of sugarcoating of the conditions one has. We can call it platform work.
I do not know if the Minister himself saw the pictures from when there was a snowstorm, for example. Train traffic and subway traffic were cancelled. People were urged not to go out on the roads. What did one see then? Food delivery riders in pink clothes cycling in the storm. We cannot have that on the Swedish labor market. We cannot have a situation where a group of people becomes a modern proletariat, whom we force out when we urge everyone else to stay home. Then these people are supposed to go out and arrange food for people.
Furthermore, it is unclear who has the employer responsibility. If this person – I have no idea how it went for them, but I hope they are doing well – for example, falls off their bike, what happens then? Who has the responsibility? These are questions that in many cases are unclear. The insurance conditions are unclear, and the work environment responsibility is unclear. It doesn't actually exist, because it has been concluded that there is no employer in that sense.
This is a real problem. We can hope that the platform directive can solve it to some extent. But organizations such as Gigwatch, for example, say openly that this will not solve the problems. Europafacket has also been very skeptical that the platform directive in the form it was finally adopted will solve this issue in the labor market. There is a rather obvious risk that it will be a shot in the air.
Another way could be to urge trade unions and employers to organize more of these people and companies so that we can bring these companies and the actual employees into the Swedish model.
I am a bit curious. What will the government do if the platform directive does not turn out to be the solution?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to state that there is clearly a consensus between us that there are major problems with the situation of gig workers today. There is no doubt whatsoever that gig workers are poorly off in the Swedish labor market and that it is related to their, in many cases, unclear employment status and who is actually responsible for what when it comes to their work environment and employment in general.
The directive, which we look forward to having adopted, will set certain minimum requirements that Sweden must live up to in order for us to fulfill what is imposed on us. We will need to appoint an inquiry to implement this directive, and in that, we will of course base it on the Swedish labor market. What problems do we have in the Swedish labor market? What uncertainties exist here? We will of course also base it on our Swedish model and how it functions so that we can achieve the legislative measures required for us to be able to fulfill our obligations according to the directive, but also so that we can improve the situation for this group and for the platform companies. As I said earlier: Everyone wins from there being clarity in where the responsibility lies.
We will, of course, have to return to the question when we appoint the commission, but there is nothing preventing us from taking a broader approach to the issue than what the directive requires of us.
Just as I was pointing out, the employment status is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Having clarity there is a crucial piece of the puzzle for the possibility of organizing on our Swedish labor market. But here I just want to interject that there is no obligation to organize in Sweden. The government's task here is to create opportunities to organize, and there I mean that it is an important piece of the puzzle that one can clarify when someone is to be considered an employee and when someone is a self-employed person.
Just as was mentioned here, not all gig workers should be classified as employees. Here we need to have a regulatory framework that is accurate and that truly fulfills its purpose. It is those who in reality act as employees who should be able to have that status.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the Minister, in some respects at least, shares the view of the problem. Those who are self-employed and pay F-tax have been raised here a few times. One could give a mandate to the Swedish Tax Agency, for example, in connection with this and say: Perhaps it is time that we examine the people who pay F-tax. Are they really self-employed, or are they in practice employees? Do they have more than one client, or do they have only one? Some of the self-employed who work within these companies actually have only one client, yet they still pay F-tax. If there is only one client, it is in practice an employer. This is something that one could look into.
I am pleased to hear that it can be considered to take a broader approach than what the directive requires regarding these issues. I look forward to taking part in the investigation directives but also to reading the investigation when it is finished. If anything is underestimated, it is reading investigations. It is actually quite fun, I might think. I look forward to doing it. But I still think that the solution in some way is that we increase the level of organization. I want to press on that.
There are all the possibilities not to choose to organize in Sweden. But if we highlight the Swedish model as an important solution in terms of managing the transition in the Swedish labor market, we need to ensure that more, both employers and employees, organize.
I am not saying that the Minister himself should go out and start recruiting people to Transport or bringing companies into the sector. But words matter. We can be clear that we would like to see an increased degree of organization within this sector. We would like to see more people join a union. We would like to see more companies take the opportunity and sign collective agreements and organize themselves, too.
I am, in any case, convinced that politicians' words have significance. I would have wished that this government had been somewhat clearer in this regard. Then one could have been clearer towards employers and employees. But thank you for a good debate!
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you for this debate. This is an important issue. We must not forget any part of the Swedish labor market. We shall have a labor market that works for everyone who is active in it.
As we have said, we will appoint an inquiry once the EU directive is finalized. Eventually, this will result in a report, which we will both have to familiarize ourselves with. Then I look forward to perhaps something of a book club in an interpellation debate format in the future. Then we can return to these questions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.