Response to interpellation 2025/26:242 on surveillance and mapping in the workplace

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! Ciczie Weidby has asked me how I and the government intend to strengthen the protection for trade union activists who are subjected to reprisals when they criticize the employer's methods, whether I consider that today's laws provide sufficient privacy protection for employees, how the government will act if I do not consider so, and whether I intend to take the initiative for a review of the legislation to more clearly limit the employer's possibilities to monitor, map, and collect sensitive personnel data.

Initially, I would like to thank Ciczie Weidby for the question. The development of technology has changed working life and created room for increased surveillance. New questions and balancing of interests thus arise within various areas of law.

There are a number of regulatory frameworks that regulate and limit the employer's possibilities for surveillance and mapping. The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one of several international instruments that provide protection for privacy and which must be taken into account in these contexts. When personal data are processed, including in camera surveillance, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation must be followed.

The employer is responsible for managing the balancing of interests and is accountable for ensuring that the application complies with laws and regulations, as well as that good practice in the labor market is observed. Regarding the issue of protection for trade union activists, I would like to emphasize that there is a statutory protection for the right of association and the position of trade union representatives in the workplace.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that the Minister's answer is symptomatic of the government's view on working life today. When workers testify about surveillance of the smallest toilet visits, mapping of social contacts, and a work environment characterized by fear, Johan Britz responds by listing regulations and referring to the fact that the employer themselves are responsible for the balancing of interests. It is not leadership; it is a shifting of responsibility.

In my interpellation, I describe a concrete case, namely Clas Ohlsons central warehouse, where the employees experience that digital technology is used to control, discipline, and silence. It is not about any gray area or about accidents at work, but it is about systematic behavior. And when such testimonies become increasingly common – especially in warehouses but also within e-commerce and in other parts of the labor market – it should be a wake-up call for the government.

Johan Britz notes that GDPR exists, that the European Convention exists, and that protection for the right of association exists, but we know that. The question is why it is not enough. If the regulations were sufficient, we would not, in fact, see how employers map out the employees' behaviors in the smallest of details. We would not see how those who are union-active are pressured – literally led – out of workplaces. We would not see how cultures of silence spread while new agreements are pushed through with threats of dismissal.

It is not a lack of law, Johan Britz, but the problem is that the laws do not bite in a working life where the power imbalance is enormous and where these digital tools give employers entirely new, fantastic opportunities for control. When Johan Britz says that it is the employer's responsibility to do the right thing, he ignores the reality in very many workplaces. For those who risk their livelihood by speaking up, it is not really a free choice to rely on the boss's good will.

I simply have to assume that Johan Britz is quite satisfied with this arrangement. At least, that is how I interpret his answer. And one could be satisfied with that if we lived in a world where there were no bosses and employers who break laws and rules, but that is not the case. That reality possibly exists in some kind of abstract parallel reality shaped by neoliberal fantasies.

I would like Johan Britz to really make use of the four minutes he has in his next contribution and at least try to answer or address some of the concerns or questions that I actually posed in my interpellation. Does the Minister not see at all that it is necessary to review whether the protection for trade union activists actually works? Does Johan Britz think that today's laws provide sufficient privacy protection for employees? If he does not think so, he is welcome to explain how it should be rectified.

Please be so kind, Johan Britz – you have four minutes to answer all my questions and calm all the employees and trade union activists across the country who are constantly afraid of losing their jobs.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to agree with large parts of the picture that Ciczie Weidby is painting here. I have also had a good deal of conversation with union activists, employees, and union-engaged individuals in workplaces. Just as Member Weidby pointed out, this applies in particular to people working within the warehouse industry.

One hears stories that make one feel a bit sick to the stomach, I actually want to claim. One hears that people are monitored from the beginning of the working day to its end and that their working lives are controlled in detail. They are told: "You shall not take that package when you are picking packages, but you shall take that package. We have, in fact, calculated via some algorithm that it will go much faster if you do so."

In some way, this also affects working life. We do, after all, want a working life in Sweden where people feel that work is at least bearable? One can talk about good work sometimes, but we do not, in any case, want people to feel that work is a torment? People should not wake up in the morning, go to work, and suffer throughout their entire working life.

There are certainly far too many who feel this way already today, and given the technological development we see and that it is being utilized in this way – that is, to monitor and control people's working lives in detail – I believe there is a great risk that even more people will feel this way about their working lives. I believe that would be very unfortunate.

That is why I would have liked to hear more from the Minister about how one views this development and whether one is prepared to take some measures. It does not have to be about putting forward large, radical legislative proposals. That may be needed; I cannot judge that here and now, at this moment. But it would be interesting to hear if some conversations are being had with the parties in the Swedish labor market regarding these types of issues and, if so, how they view this. How does, for example, Svensk Handel view that more and more companies choose to monitor warehouse employees and control their working lives? What dialogue is being had with, for example, Handelsanställdas förbund on the issue?

There are also many other examples. This is also occurring to an ever-increasing extent in the public sector, where people have managers who sit and check their Skype signal: "Now your signal has shown you as inactive for ten minutes – where have you been?" That type of question is also a kind of control and surveillance that was not possible just a few years ago but which is now possible in the vast majority of workplaces.

This is, therefore, a growing problem, and there is nothing in general technological development – or in the power imbalance between labor and capital that has shifted over the last 30 years – that suggests this will decrease. Instead, there is quite a lot that suggests it will rather increase. Given the development we see in many companies, it is also likely that they will want to continue to monitor and control their employees increasingly with the help of the opportunities that technological development provides.

I am, just as in the previous interpellation debate, interested in hearing how the Minister for Employment considers these issues. But if there are no large legislative packages in the works – if there are, the Minister is of course welcome to account for them – I am also, as I said, interested in hearing about the dialogue with the labor market parties regarding these issues. I hope, in fact, that there is an ongoing dialogue also regarding this type of questions.

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

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the interpellator and Adrian Magnusson for this discussion.

Now I will provide an answer that people in my role sometimes utter in this chamber: I am not aware of the specific circumstances in the particular case that the interpellor raises, and I cannot comment on them.

It can, however, be said that unfortunately there will always be examples of employers who do not follow laws and regulations. Here I want to highlight the role of the trade union organizations. Both they and the authorities, when it comes to certain of the regulatory frameworks, have an important task to monitor employers' compliance with the regulatory frameworks. Ultimately, a violation can lead to a court process with, for example, liability for damages as a consequence. It is often the order we have in this country when someone experiences or perceives that a regulatory framework has been violated.

I have ongoing dialogue with the trade union parties and also the employer parties in the Swedish labor market. Earlier this week, I met the chairman of Handelsanställdas förbund and spoke about a number of different issues. This question did not come up, but it would of course be interesting to also hear their view.

I want to point out that there is a strong employment protection in Sweden and that employees should not have to be afraid of losing their jobs because they speak up at, for example, what is perceived as unreasonable controls. Even here, the unions have an important role, for example through the opportunities for influence that the Co-determination Act provides, as well as the opportunities they have to advise employees and represent them in legal disputes.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would have very much liked to take over the two minutes of speaking time that Johan Britz did not use to tell a bit more about this case, which Johan Britz was not aware of at all. I can only summarize it briefly.

Things have crashed a bit at Clas Ohlson. From being a cute, nice family business, it has transformed into some kind of Amazon dystopia. It is easy to google that. There are several articles and so on, including on arbetet.se and so forth.

This technology is not new. It is not just the incident at Clas Ohlson that makes me raise these questions. It has been going on for a while, for as long as we have had the digital technology.

I have worked in a warehouse myself. There, of course, you have a computer in front of you and an order of what you are to pick and so on. You go around and beep them in. Then someone can actually sit and look: Here we see that Ciczie picked up these and these things. Then it took a while before she picked up the next thing. What did she do during that time? She might have fallen and hurt herself. She might have helped someone else who needed help with a lift. Or she was just lazy and sat there picking at her navel.

The question is whether one should use the technology in that way. One obviously should not do that. That is something that must be agreed upon.

Johan Britz spoke about the trade union organization and the important role it has. That is, of course, the case. But the question is whether the union's role in a workplace is really only to tell the employer what it is not allowed to do. Is it not reasonable that the company and the employer know from the very beginning what one is and is not allowed to do? In the case that I describe in my interpellation, trade union activists and safety representatives have practically been pushed out of the workplace and have not returned.

There is an immense amount to say about this, about the technology and about the laws that exist for protection. But again: Is it only the trade union organization and, in this case, Handels that are responsible for taking a stand and ensuring that someone does not behave like a villain? It is interesting. How is it that Johan Britz insists that it is the trade union organization that has the responsibility to ensure that this does not happen?

This must be sorted out. It must be straightened out. Johan Britz must have much more communication. He must read up more on how technology is used to control people, including workers in warehouses. The labor market is hardening. Conditions are being pressed down. And the control is increasing more and more. One can do it because one often gets away with it. One does it because one learns how to bypass certain laws, sneak in silence clauses and so on, and get rid of people.

Above all, one can do it because one knows that there will be no consequences. One can do it because one knows that, for example, the government or a Minister for Employment does not have the slightest clue about what is happening and will also not address the problem.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ciczie Weidby asked a fairly good question, which actually becomes the basis for everything we are discussing in this interpellation debate. Should we use the technology and the data that is collected in this way? Is it reasonable? Is this how we want it? Do we want a working life in Sweden where a large part of the employees, the workers, feel that their working lives are monitored and controlled in detail? I do not think we want that.

We are now seeing a rather clear development in several sectors, for example within trade as Ciczie Weidby has accounted for, but also in the public service sector. It occurs at state agencies that people call employees when they see that they have been away for five minutes longer on lunch and ask where they are.

We can, for example, say in words that it is not a development we want to see. So we can also do that; it is still my conviction that words have meaning. It will have an effect if the Minister for Employment, the Prime Minister, or anyone else says, "We think this is a bad development." They can also say, "We do not want it to be like this on the Swedish labor market. We do not want a development where work life is controlled and monitored in detail." It can have an effect. It is at least my conviction. I may live in some naive notion of the world's state, but I believe that it can work.

That is why I think the question that Ciczie Weidby asked becomes central. Should the technology be used in this way? It would be very pleasant if the Minister for Employment could reason based on his political basic conviction regarding whether the technology should be used in this way. Is this how the working life should look today and in the future?

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

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am very proud of the Swedish labor market model with the strong parties that we have on both the employer side and the union side. But with that comes also a responsibility to ensure a certain amount of control work and to promote members' and employees' rights in a workplace. Therefore, it is particularly important that union activists should not be afraid of reprisals for carrying out their union representative duties. The Co-determination Act contains protection for the right of association, and union representatives have protection according to the Union Representative Act. These are good regulations that build strong parties. Examples of this are that employers may not prevent a union representative from fulfilling their mandate and that a union representative, by reason of their mandate, may not be given worsened working conditions or employment terms.

We have circulated a bit regarding control and monitoring in working life. It has an impact on the work environment at the workplace. The starting point for the government and for our legislation is that all employees have the right to a good work environment and that employers must include any risks with different types of control, monitoring, and follow-up measures in their systematic work environment management. To come back to where I started, this work needs to be carried out in cooperation with safety representatives. That is how it should work.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! George Orwell's dystopia 1984, which was written nearly 80 years ago, depicts a society where Big Brother sees everything and where surveillance is not just about control but about power, fear, and obedience. Today we see how that logic creeps into the working life. It is no longer a dystopia but a reality. The difference is that Big Brother is not the state, but it is the employers.

When every movement is measured, every minute is recorded and every conversation risks being mapped, it is not efficiency that is at the center, but it is discipline. When trade union activists are cleared out, safety representatives are silenced and non-disclosure agreements replace openness, it is no longer about cooperation but about the exercise of power.

Mr. Speaker! In Orwell's world, control was about crushing opposition and making organization impossible. In today's working life, digital tools are used for the exact same purpose: to make workers lonely, replaceable, and afraid. The one who knows that Big Brother is always watching thinks twice before saying anything.

Mr. Speaker! A working life where people are monitored as suspects, where privacy is sacrificed for productivity and where the right of association is eroded in practice is not a society that I want to live in. It is not the democratic world that I want. It is also a major step away from the Swedish model, which Johan Britz also stands up for and defends.

The task of politics is to set limits on power and to say "this far, but no further." This power and opportunity, Johan Britz has.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have tonight noted, and the interpellator has also pointed out, that the new technology that is progressively emerging makes it possible for employers to monitor and control employees to a greater extent now than before. Employers are, however, still obliged to make balancing of interests and follow the regulatory frameworks that are applicable to such situations. Fundamentally, it is about the employer's interest in control and monitoring must be weighed against the employee's protection of personal privacy.

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear that the employer, according to today's regulations, may not perform just any controls. Control measures involving the processing of personal data must, for example, be proportionate, be purposeful, and be based on a legal basis according to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR. Furthermore, there are requirements for the employer to provide information to employees regarding the personal data processing that may take place in the workplace.

Video surveillance of employees may be permitted under certain specific conditions, but I want to emphasize that strong reasons are required for it to be permitted according to GDPR. In addition, there are further regulations that set limitations for surveillance and mapping in the business sector.

With strong parties in the labor market, we will also be able to handle the technological development that is taking place. Thank you for the discussion!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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