Response to interpellation 2024/25:197 on income insurance in new unemployment funds
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns income insurance in the new a-kassan. L considers that the unemployment insurance should be a transition insurance where the compensation is tapered down to strengthen the incentives for job seekers to find new work 1. L argues that it is reasonable for the compensation to be tapered down so that private income insurances do not neutralize the provisions 1. L stands for a work line 2 and considers that the government presents proposals that make it more profitable to work 2. S argues that the government is worsening the a-kassan and the supplementary income insurances, which reduces security 3. S wants to combat unemployment instead of lowering the compensation rate 4.
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 Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Ardalan Shekarabi has asked me what reasons underlie my and the government's decision to change the unemployment insurance, with the consequence that the trade unions' opportunities to organize supplementary income insurance for their members within the framework of the unemployment insurance are made more difficult.
Let me first say that the unemployment insurance is and shall continue to be a transition insurance where financial compensation is paid out during the 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 bill, the incentives for job seekers to find a new job are strengthened. In this way, more can move from unemployment to employment.
The Government considers it reasonable that the unemployment benefit is tapered down for everyone receiving compensation in a transition insurance. With regard to the purpose of the tapering, the Government considers it reasonable that an applicant should not be able to be compensated from a private income insurance in such a way that the consequences of the tapering provisions are neutralized. The incentives for job seekers to find a new job shall be strengthened. The proposal, which was presented in the report A new regulatory framework for the unemployment insurance (SOU 2020:37), has been referred. The majority of the referral bodies have not commented on the proposal or have had nothing to object to it.
Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I can state that income insurance of the kind mentioned in the question can already today affect the scope for the right to unemployment benefit. The agreements for these insurances are not, however, statutory, and the government proposes no change in that regard. It will also continue to be possible to provide income insurance, and there will, as today, be a limitation on how large such an insurance payment can be without the benefit being affected. The limitation that will apply in the new regulatory framework does, however, mean that all unemployed people are affected by the reduction intended in the law at the same time, which makes the insurance fairer.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, honorable Minister, for the answer!
We are in a situation where unemployment is rising in our country. We have an unemployment rate that is at the highest level in ten years - between 8 and 9 percent unemployment. We have a youth unemployment that is rising. We have a long-term unemployment that is rising. More and more industries are being affected. Right now, it is the construction industry that is really paying a high price. Out here every Tuesday, construction workers stand and demand more active measures from the government.
In that situation, one could believe that the minister would devote his time and energy to combating unemployment and trying to help those affected by unemployment, so that they are not forced to sell houses and cars and so that they are not impoverished.
But instead of active measures, extraordinary efforts, and press conferences where the government presents urgent measures to ensure that more Swedes do not suffer from unemployment, the government spends its energy on worsening the unemployment insurance and making the unemployment insurance worse and less secure, with poorer compensations, so that those who are affected by unemployment have it even tougher. The construction workers who are now being laid off, the nursing assistants who are forced to quit, and the transport workers who quit will then have even worse finances.
It is impossible to accept this, Madam Speaker. How can one, as Minister for Employment, not see it as their task to combat unemployment, but instead see it as their task to combat the unemployed and their economic security? One might think that there might be some limit somewhere, that the government would be content with only worsening the unemployment insurance and not touch the private income insurances that trade unions offer their members. But, no, they also intend to worsen the income insurances for those affected by unemployment. It is inconceivable. Only ideological blinkers can explain such an action from a government in a time when unemployment affects almost half a million Swedes.
The people, honorable members of the Council, have not chosen to become unemployed. They want to work. But we have an economy and a lack of active labor market policy that forces them into unemployment. 95 percent of the members of the trade unions that are part of LO, TCO, or Saco belong to a trade union organization that offers exactly income insurance as a complement to the unemployment insurance fund, so that people have security when they become unemployed.
Now the trade unions say that these deteriorations will not only affect the finances of the unemployed and worsen the security for the unemployed. Just because the income insurance is being limited, it becomes harder for trade unions to recruit members, as this is one of the benefits that the trade unions offer the members.
I want to ask the Minister for Employment again: Why is the government acting this way? Why is the government not worsening not only the unemployment insurance but also the income insurance for Sweden's wage earners and entrepreneurs when unemployment affects so many in our country?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for your commitment to this issue! I am pleased that we were able to arrange this interpellation debate.
Sweden is in a tough economic situation. This is the case for many countries in Europe. But thanks to a responsible economic policy, together with the Riksbank's upcoming interest rate cuts, we now see how the Swedish economy is gradually becoming somewhat brighter further ahead.
Many people are now looking forward to interest rate cuts and tax cuts. Fiscal policy and monetary policy go hand in hand and perform a kind of teamwork both in a downturn and in an upturn.
The tough times are not Ardalan Shekarabis' fault and not Mats Persson's fault. They are rooted in Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent effects of it. The consequences are tough for very many companies, for very many households and for very many workers.
In that situation, it is important for the government to ensure that there are many opportunities for the unemployed to undergo training. Next year, 120,000 Swedes will have the opportunity to undergo vocational training - from Ystad in the south to Haparanda in the north.
We are now testing, from the state and municipal sides, different types of training that all have a very clear purpose and where one learns at work and in that way can have greater opportunities to get a job.
Madam Speaker! An equally important part of a policy that stands up for the work line is that it should pay to work instead of living on benefits and ensuring that the fund, which is a transition insurance, is precisely a transition insurance. In the insurance, the compensation is stepped down after a number of months of unemployment just to ensure that people continue to actively seek work.
This is not something that the government has made up, but it is based on the research that exists regarding labor market economics and the type of insurance that can initially be very high. The government is now raising the ceiling in the unemployment insurance fund, which means that there will be a higher compensation level at the beginning, and after that, the compensation becomes lower the longer you are unemployed. This is implemented so that the unemployment insurance fund can be a support in the beginning, which means that you should not have to sell your house and home just because you have become unemployed. Instead, you shall receive a support that you can feel secure with. The compensation also decreases over time, because your chance of returning to a job and to the labor market decreases for every day you are outside the labor market and in unemployment.
Madam Speaker! Will it be possible in the future for a trade union to offer a supplementary income insurance to an unemployed person? The answer is yes. Will trade unions in Sweden have an important role to fill on the Swedish labor market in the future? The answer is yes. Will people with the new fund feel security and have more money in their pockets? Yes, in the beginning, but after a while, the compensation will be reduced because we know that the motivation will then increase to obtain a job and to seek work.
The work principle is about it paying off better to work instead of living on benefits. The work principle is about the welfare system being a transition insurance where we set requirements on people.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister for Employment is well aware that requirements are set from day one. One must make oneself available to the labor market. What we are discussing now, however, is what economic security one should have. One should not be forced to sell a house and a car and move even further away from the opportunities to get a job if, as a construction worker, one is now hit by unemployment, which very many are doing right now.
What the government is doing here and now, when unemployment is rising and when more and more Swedes are affected by unemployment, is to actively step in and lower the benefits in the unemployment insurance fund. From day 101 - it is not that many months - the benefit in the unemployment insurance fund is lowered from 80 to 70 percent.
One could think that the Minister for Employment's responsibility now was to strengthen the security for the construction workers and other workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs who are affected by unemployment. But the government is therefore actively deciding to lower the replacement rate from 80 to 70 percent already on day 101. This means that very many occupational categories are affected and receive both lower benefits and, in practice, worse income insurance - not least the members of the trade unions Sveriges Lärare, Vision and Unionen, who work very actively with income insurance.
The net income for a person with 33,000 kronor per month before tax decreases by more than 2,000 kronor per month already from day 101. The whole point of the unemployment fund and the income insurance is eroded without any reason for it. The government should focus its energy on fighting unemployment and not the unemployed, because it is no voluntary choice that the construction workers are making now when they are hit by unemployment.
Madam Speaker! Let us for a moment accept the Minister for Employment's logic. We start from the logic that the unemployment benefit must be lowered for all those who are affected by unemployment in our country right now, due to the economic downturn and due to the lack of an active labor market policy. Let us accept the premises that the Minister for Employment starts from. But I have a question that I have thought a lot about over the last few weeks: If it is indeed the case that a reduction of the unemployment benefit directly after 100 days is an important element for people to work, how is it then that the Minister has a severance pay that is 100 percent on day 100, day 200, day 300, and all the way to day 365? What is it that makes Mats Persson and the other Ministers so unique that they do not need a tapering of their income insurance, while the country's workers, civil servants, and entrepreneurs are to face a lowered unemployment benefit already after 100 days in this situation with growing unemployment?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Ardalan Shekarabi himself has been a minister in two previous Social Democratic governments during the last eight years. He is well aware of the regulatory framework that applies to ministers. As I recall, Ardalan Shekarabi during the eight years as minister in the two - or three - governments took no initiatives to change the regulatory framework that applies to ministers such as Ardalan Shekarabi.
I wanted to return to the issue that the interpellation concerns. I am very surprised that the Social Democrats, when we voted on this here in the chamber, chose to say no to the change in the unemployment insurance fund that we are currently implementing. The change that we are implementing in the unemployment insurance fund means that we are raising the ceiling to 34,000 kronor at the beginning of the unemployment insurance period. We are thus strengthening the security and the compensation so that, in the beginning when one becomes unemployed, one can feel secure and be able to receive a compensation that is higher than it is today. But after that, we ensure that the compensation is stepped down gradually in a ladder, because we know that there is a risk that people get stuck in unemployment and do not get out onto the labor market. The years go by, year after year, and one does not get out and can support oneself.
This is not something that Mats Persson or Ardalan Shekarabi have made up, but the best Swedish researchers show in research that is how the best insurance should be designed. It is also a way to ensure that we give legitimacy to the system and that the Swedish people feel that this system, and the tax money they pay into the fund, is used and paid out to people who are doing their utmost to seek a job. We also get a good security and a good foundation to stand on in an insurance that we can all feel very proud of.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for this debate.
One of the things that made Sweden unique during the 20th century and which inspired many other countries to copy the Swedish model was precisely the security for people in transition. This security for people when they are affected by illness, work-related injury, or unemployment inspired many other countries, which introduced corresponding models with funds and social insurance. You should not have to become poor the day you are hit by unemployment, but rather you should have economic security and a very clear expectation that you will make yourself employable. There must also be an active labor market policy that offers you support and education so that you can take the jobs that are available.
Today we face a passivity from the government, an acceptance, a tolerance for unemployment and at the same time a deterioration not only of the unemployment insurance but also of the supplementary income insurances taken out by trade unions. This is a serious economic threat to Sweden's wage earners.
We Social Democrats will, at every given opportunity in this chamber and everywhere else, stand up for economic security for those who toil and struggle. We will fight every day for a strong treasury and good opportunities for trade unions to offer supplementary income insurance, for we know that those who toil every day on construction sites, in healthcare, in preschools, and in various companies all around our country deserve both our respect and economic security the day they are affected by unemployment.
To Mats Persson, I can give the promise that we will continue to vote no to deteriorations, because it is our task to stand up for economic security for our citizens.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for an excellent debate! For those who are listening and taking part in the debate, it is clear that there is a clear conflict in Swedish politics: the one between the work line, which the government stands for, and the benefit line, which the Social Democrats stand for.
Every time we submit proposals in the Riksdag - it could be about improved benefits with better incentives to work - the Social Democrats vote no. When we submit proposals in the Riksdag that make it more profitable to work, the Social Democrats vote no.
Fundamentally, this is about an ideological view of society – what kind of society we should have. Do we believe that jobs are created by municipal bureaucrats or trade unions, or do we believe they are created by individual companies and hard-working people? Do we believe that prosperity is built by high subsidies, or do we believe it is about companies being able to hire and that we can build successful companies in Sweden?
Madam Speaker! There has been a very clear debate between different dividing lines, where the government stands for a work line and where the Social Democrats clearly stand for a benefit line.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.