Response to interpellation 2025/26:303 on the right of re-employment during temporary interruptions in an operation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the right of re-employment during temporary interruptions in an activity. L argues that the Swedish labor market model is based on a balance between workers' protection and employers' need to make decisions 1. L emphasizes that the legislation is a framework law where the parties have a responsibility to negotiate collective agreements 2. L argues that the system works and that the state offers support through transition organizations and an income-based unemployment insurance 3 4. S believes there is a gap in the legislation that allows companies to avoid responsibility during temporary pauses 5. S argues that employees are forced to bear the entire risk when companies choose termination despite planned re-engagements 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! Lars Mejern Larsson has asked me what initiatives I intend to take to strengthen the employees' right to reinstatement so that it provides sufficient protection in situations where operations temporarily cease but are resumed. I would like to begin by thanking the member for the question.
Workers who lose their jobs due to a shortage of work have, according to the Employment Protection Act, the right to re-employment in certain cases. The provision balances, on one hand, the workers' need for protection, and on the other hand, the employer's need to be able to make necessary decisions in connection with operational changes. The balance between the parties in the labor market is the core of the Swedish labor market model. It is based on the fact that the legislation sets frameworks and that the parties in the labor market, through collective agreements, establish industry-specific conditions. Party solutions are guiding in the Swedish model and can be to the advantage of both workers and employers. In this way, for example, deviations from the provision on the right to re-employment can be made. Here, workers' organizations have opportunities to safeguard the workers' interests.
Questions regarding employment protection and transition are current and important, and I therefore follow them closely. It is through cooperation between legislation and collective agreements that the needs of the labor market and the security of employees can best be reconciled. The Government safeguards the Swedish labor market model.
Lars Mejern Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! This interpellation is ultimately about safety in working life and about responsibility from employers when operations temporarily cease.
In Karlstad, all 55 employees at a department store were laid off in the days before Christmas. The justification was a lack of work. At the same time, we know that the operation is not being shut down – it is being paused. The department store has been demolished and is to be rebuilt. A new department store is to be completed within approximately one year.
This is not a situation where demand has disappeared, where the business idea has failed, or where the jobs are gone forever. This is a temporary restructuring. Nevertheless, the company chooses to lay off all employees. Negotiations have been conducted but without results. Proposals for temporary relocation, for work at nearby department stores, and for extended re-employment rights have been rejected.
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the answer, but I understand from it that the Minister will actually, to my disappointment, not take any measures.
As I have tried to point out, we can see that there is a gap in today's legislation, which means that the company is given the opportunity to not take responsibility for its employees. With a simple stroke of a pen, the wage cost can be shifted onto society. In this case, the company is well aware that it will open its operations in the relatively near future but still chooses to abandon the staff instead of protecting them.
Unfortunately, we have an unemployment rate that is at the same level as during the 90s, and many of the employees are loyal workers with many years within the company. But this is of no interest to the owner, who, through his companies in Hong Kong and the Netherlands, does everything to evade his obligations towards the employees.
It is clear in this specific matter that the right of re-employment only applies for nine months. It will mean that the company most likely does not need to re-employ those who have been employed in the now closed store. They can choose to exclude the older and experienced workforce – if they even re-employ any of the former employees.
We have previously heard the minister speak about the Swedish model, but this time it is not enough to speak to the chamber. Now it is time to move from words to action by taking an initiative on the issue. It does not solve the problem for these affected people in Värmland, but politics is a long-term craft, and it would certainly help other citizens in the future.
Now that the company in question, Biltema, has stepped up, more companies will surely feel: Can they, can we.
The market is tough, and right now the labor market is the toughest with high unemployment figures. Toughest it is for the workforce that has reached the invisible line of having turned 40, for approximately there lie the thresholds for layoffs.
Madam Speaker! The Swedish model is based on balance. It is based on employers taking responsibility and on legislation providing a basic protection that cannot be bypassed through technical arrangements. When an operation temporarily ceases and the intention is for it to be resumed, a gray area arises where today's rules risk being insufficient. My question to the Minister for Employment is therefore simple but fundamentally important:
Is it reasonable that employees should bear the entire risk in the event of temporary interruptions that the employer itself controls?
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the question. I think this is important.
In the Swedish labor market model, the parties in the labor market have a great responsibility. The responsibility is shared with the state. The parties' ability to take their share of the responsibility is good and has historically been very good. This government safeguards the parties' autonomy and independence, which is the foundation of the model. It is strong, and it has served Sweden well.
This question concerns the right of re-employment, which is partly regulated in the Employment Protection Act. But the Employment Protection Act is largely a framework law that constitutes the basis for stable rules of the game for the parties in the labor market, and where they have opportunities to reach different agreements through collective agreements.
It is the employers who lead and distribute the work. They have the right to decide on changes in the operations. The Employment Protection Act grants a right to re-employment in certain cases. In that regard, it should be remembered that it is in itself a restriction on the employer's right of management. However, the provisions on re-employment are in some cases semi-dispositive, meaning that the parties can, through agreement, deviate from what is stated in the law.
I understand the interpellator's concern for the people who are now being laid off. We must take that very seriously. It concerns both the anxiety that these people feel and their opportunities to return to another job. But in this case, it is precisely as the legislation and the collective agreement model are intended to function. We have a framework law at the bottom which has then been negotiated upon, and so a solution has either been reached or not reached. It is nothing that I can interfere in.
Lars Mejern Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, but responsibility shared with the state means that the state shall bear the entire cost for this completely horrible management. I do not understand that at all.
This discussion between me and the Minister for Employment is rooted in so much more than what happened at a single workplace in Karlstad, even though that incident is more than enough.
The Swedish model is a unique handshake between an employer and an employee. I want to go as far as to assert that the agreement is unique in the world and therefore world-leading when it comes to the rules of the game in a functioning labor market. The agreement has meant that the companies have been granted a peace obligation. This, in turn, has meant that the majority of our country's entrepreneurs have developed strong and competitive companies. The employees, in turn, have received secure employment with contractually agreed wages. This has made Sweden a successful export nation.
In this chamber, we often hear about the Swedish model. It has surely not escaped anyone's notice that I have had my professional home in the construction industry, first as a carpenter and then as an ombudsman. The construction industry was the industry that first noticed the companies' clear attempts to undermine the prevailing rules of the game in the labor market. I will not exhaust you in the chamber with stories about how this has changed the construction industry from a stable industry to an industry that is now flooded with problems from unscrupulous companies that do not contribute to the Swedish model but actively cause its weakening.
This also means that many billions of our tax dollars are disappearing from the country. It does not only cause unnecessary suffering for the individual who is affected, but it also erodes the welfare, because every tax krona is needed to maintain the general system we have built up.
I have been active with one of the parties that shook hands on this model, and if I remember correctly, the Minister for Employment has been active with the other party. It surprises me that it seems to be okay for the responsible minister that the unserious companies are now spreading across all sectors. I could say that the government seems to be acting like the three wise monkeys—saying nothing, hearing nothing, and seeing nothing. Nevertheless, I urge the minister to act—even if I am speaking to deaf ears.
Madam Speaker! The Minister says that the government safeguards the Swedish model. I conclude that this means that one safeguards the current situation and is not interested in making improvements when deficiencies are discovered, as in the case of Biltema.
I therefore wonder what would make the government move forward with a proposal that strengthens the Swedish model, when such deficiencies are uncovered.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! The Government safeguards the Swedish model. It also means that we have the Swedish model, just as the member describes. I largely agree with that description of all the merits that the Swedish model has and which contribute to making Sweden a wealthy country.
It is, however, based on a balance, and a balance means that different phenomena sometimes result in the employees' dissatisfaction and sometimes in the employers' dissatisfaction. If one goes in and shakes that balance, one potentially finds oneself on a slippery slope.
The government wants there to be secure conditions on the labor market even when one is between jobs and may need to transition. Lack of work has very negative effects both for the individual and for society; we know that.
We can observe that the conditions for transition have improved further through the transition package implemented in 2022. Even before that, there were transition organizations that help workers who are laid off. It is a difficult situation for everyone who is affected. These organizations provide support to laid-off and dismissed persons who need to transition between jobs. It is also a fundamental pillar of the Swedish model that one should receive help if one loses their job. The transition organizations have high competence and can, with good results, help persons who may need to transition between jobs.
Lars Mejern Larsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Did the Minister call the handling of Biltema balanced? Then there are probably more than just me in Sweden who are becoming worried.
This is not a technical discussion about paragraphs, but this is about 55 people who, via a text message, had their lives shattered into pieces in the days before Christmas. All employees at a department store at home in Karlstad were laid off with reference to a shortage of work. At the same time, everyone knows – the company, the employees, and we here in the chamber – that the business is not disappearing; it is being paused. The premises are being demolished, and a new department store is being built. In about a year, the doors will be reopened.
This is, therefore, not a crisis but a pure and simple investment. Nevertheless, the company chose the most far-reaching measure available: to lay everyone off. There are no temporary solutions, no relocation, and no willingness to let the employees work at a nearby warehouse. There is no accountability. The result is that the employees have to bear the entire risk. The company avoids the cost, and the state – that is, we taxpayers – have to foot the bill.
Madam Speaker! When a labor shortage is invoked in situations where the entire intention is for the operation to be resumed, the trust in employment protection is eroded. Then security is transformed into an uncertain future, where a few months' delay in a construction project can determine whether people have the right to get their jobs back or not.
My question to the Minister for Employment is therefore not ideological but practical and deeply human: Is this really the security that Swedish wage earners can expect today, in 2026?
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! We have systems in Sweden that aim to handle situations where people are dismissed due to a lack of work. The member has asked me whether this situation is reasonable based on the legislation we have in LAS. I can state that LAS is a framework law and that the parties have a responsibility to negotiate and make agreements based on it.
We must be clear that unemployment is very dangerous. One must therefore return to work very quickly. The parties have developed transition organizations that are very skilled, and the state has Arbetsförmedlingen. We pay a large part of the a-kassa even though there are also own contributions there. We in the government have reformed the a-kassa so that it is income-based and more people are covered. The support is higher at the beginning, and there is a clearer tapering. That is how the system is supposed to work.
When I say that it is about balance, it is about the system needing to have a balance. In some cases, one party will perceive that the balance is wrong, and another party perceives that the balance is right and vice versa. That is how it will be in a system where one negotiates their way to different solutions.
I think we have a very good system. This government safeguards the Swedish model as it functions. We shall have security in the workplace, and we shall have security if one has lost one's job and needs to transition.
Thank you for a very important discussion!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.