Response to interpellation 2025/26:565 on the removal of the waiting period
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S wants to remove the sickness benefit deduction because it is unfair to occupations where one cannot work from home 1. 2 S argues that the abolition would reduce total sickness absence as people recover faster if they get rest immediately 2. 3 S argues that M has done nothing about the problem during their time as minister and that they have not presented proposals to lower the ceiling for the sickness benefit deduction 3. 3 S argues that the sickness benefit deduction is unfair and should be removed so that people do not become poorer by being sick 3. 4 5 M argues that the sickness benefit deduction is a fair insurance deductible that counteracts over-utilization 4 5. 4 5 6 M argues that an abolition would increase sickness benefit costs by up to 24 to 40 billion kronor, which would burden workers' wage space or the state's economy 4 5 6. 5 6 M argues that S has not financed its promise to remove the deduction in its election budget 5 6. 6 M considers that S's election promise to remove the sickness benefit deduction lacks funding and is irresponsible because it could lead to higher sickness absence and sickness benefit costs 6. 7 M argues that this hits hard-working people and welfare occupations hard when colleagues do not come to work 7. 7 M claims that it is a lottery to vote for S because they rely on dynamic effects even though investigations show high costs 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.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me if I intend to make any changes to the rules for quarantine deductions if I continue in my post after the election.
The government's reforms lead to a Sweden where more people support themselves, more children see their parents go to work, and the welfare system gets better conditions to reach those who truly need it.
During the mandate period, the government has carefully investigated the quarantine deduction. In January 2023, the government decided to task a working group in the Government Offices with analyzing the quarantine deduction's appropriateness and assessing whether there was any need for changes to the quarantine deduction.
In December 2023, the working group submitted its final report on the department memorandum *Karenstak och högriskskydd – en översyn av karensavdraget och förslag på utökade undantag* (Ds 2023:33). The report is a comprehensive knowledge base on the consequences and appropriateness of the care deduction. The working group's proposals have been subject to consultation.
The working group assesses that the period of absence deduction implies a more equitable and insurance-based deductible compared to the previous period of absence. The working group also assesses that the period of absence deduction counteracts over-utilization but can be burdensome for individuals with recurring sick leave and for individuals with small economic margins.
There is a so-called recurrence rule which means that a period of sick leave starting within five days from the time a previous period of sick leave has ended is seen as a continuation of the previous one. In that case, no new waiting period deduction shall be made. The working group notes that it is relatively common for the rule to be applied in cases of short-term absence due to illness and that it entails a protection from waiting period deductions.
The working group has analyzed the effects of abolishing the quarantine deduction. According to the working group's calculations, the direct effect of an abolished quarantine deduction is that employers' sick pay costs increase by approximately 14 billion kronor. This corresponds to a 38 percent increase in employers' sick pay costs. Taking behavioral effects into account, sick pay costs are estimated to increase by an additional up to 10 billion kronor, i.e., to approximately 24 billion.
If the employers are not to be compensated for increased sick pay costs, it is reasonable for the working group to assume that the cost will be taken, in whole or in part, from the employees' wage room in future collective bargaining movements. If the employers were to be compensated by the state in some way, it would entail cost increases or income reductions for the state's economy.
Let me, in this context, finally remind of the possibility that already exists today to provide professional groups and employees with sick pay from the first day of sickness. If there is a need to make exceptions from the waiting period (karensavdrag) for employees within specific professions or industries, the parties in the labor market can negotiate such exceptions through collective agreements. Several referral bodies have pointed out this as a possibility to provide specific professional groups and employees with sick pay from the first day of sickness.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The care allowance is fundamentally a question of justice. Illness affects us all, but the care allowance affects people very differently.
Those who can take their computer home, move a meeting, and perhaps work from home with a bit of fever and a sore throat never need to be affected by the care deduction. But the nursing assistant cannot care for the elderly from home. The preschool teacher cannot take the preschool children home. The bus driver cannot drive the bus from the kitchen table, and the shop assistant cannot sit at the checkout remotely.
Nine out of ten LO members have to do the work at the job. Many of the female workers have as many as five care deductions in a year, and that amounts to a lot of money. On the other hand, about half of the white-collar workers have zero care deductions during a year. It is deeply unfair, and that is why we Social Democrats want to remove the care deduction.
Mr. Speaker! Let us remember that the person who is on sick leave still does not receive full pay even when the quarantine deduction is removed. Sick pay is at most 80 percent. There are already one, two, and actually three deductibles in the sickness insurance. There will be two when the quarantine deduction is removed. But bourgeois politicians apparently do not think this is enough, and the person who has the misfortune of becoming ill and perhaps even being infected at work by sick students or patients shall lose even more on the first day of sickness.
For families with small economic margins, the care deduction can be the difference between being able to afford food for the entire month and not being able to. Many people who are already financially pressured react exactly as one can expect in this situation: They go to work even though they are sick because they cannot afford the care deduction. It is so wrong!
Mr. Speaker! Handelsfacket's investigations show how widespread sickness absence is. Almost eight out of ten members state that they have gone to work while sick at least once during the last twelve-month period.
What this means for the spread of infection, reduced productivity, and even more cases of illness has been examined by, among others, researchers at Gävle University. They conclude, in line with other international research, that employers' costs for presenteeism are higher than their costs for absenteeism.
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have also noted the problem with the unfair quarantine deduction. They have proposed that the deduction be removed for people in contact zones. This has been advised against by all interest organizations and authorities who were part of Anna Tenje's investigation reference group due to unreasonable boundary-setting problems. But the Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government that Anna Tenje probably wants to see after the election, and my question is therefore: What is the Minister's position on the Sweden Democrats' proposal to remove the quarantine deduction for people in contact zones?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I think we should not take victory for granted and that I should not negotiate the government in the Speaker's chair of the Riksdag.
We were looking at how often people are sick and what the statistics look like. They are definitely alarming in some cases, but one can still state that an average worker is sick about 2 times per year. The figures differ quite a bit between men and women: 1.4 times per year if you are a man and just over 2 times per year if you are a woman. In occupations in the public sector, the figure is higher. There, one is sick approximately 3.1 times per year.
Occupational health care counts more than 6 instances of sick leave as repeated short-term absence, and at more than 10 periods of quarantine during a twelve-month period, the individual is covered by a general high-risk protection which means that further quarantine deductions shall not be made.
In its thorough investigation, the working group found that the sickness benefit deduction entails a fairer insurance deductible than the previous sickness benefit deduction and that the sickness benefit deduction counteracts over-utilization.
For the care assistant or the service worker, there are many other measures that protect the finances of hard-working people, even in times of illness. However, for those who are often ill or fall ill again, there are specific exception rules. The government's collective measures have ensured that a single care assistant can retain approximately 3,200 kronor more of their salary every month, which means nearly 40,000 kronor a year. Since 2022 alone, an average family with children has been able to retain 5,000 kronor more per month or 60,000 kronor a year.
There is, therefore, no reduction of the care allowance in the world that would strengthen the finances of the care assistant, the nursing assistant, the police officer, or the caseworker as much as tax cuts and improvements for households, which all left-wing parties in the Riksdag have consistently said no to.
Mr. Speaker! What I am becoming more concerned about is that an abolition of the waiting period deduction would lead to much higher sickness absence, high sick leaves, and high sick pay costs – an increase of up to 40 percent. This would cost up to 24 billion according to the working group's analysis. According to Svenskt Näringsliv, it would cost up to 40 billion kronor – figures that the member's prime ministerial candidate, Magdalena Andersson, in SVT a while ago admittedly claimed that Svenskt Näringsliv had made up. This is a rather gross and sweeping accusation if one aspires to become prime minister, but that is for her to deal with.
Svenskt Näringsliv's figures are based on the working group's calculations. If the Social Democrats do not trust the officials working at the Government Offices and their open calculations and want to question these, they must provide their own calculations. On that point, Mr. Speaker, there is something empty. Now, everything is promised to everyone and it is said that the redundancy deduction will be abolished. But if one goes in and reads in the Social Democrats' own election budget, one sees that this is financed with 0 SEK. This brings me back again to the theme of promising a lot but holding very little. One can wonder if the figure of 5 billion that Magdalena Andersson mentioned a year and three months ago was made up.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister usually defends the karens deduction by saying it is needed so that people do not take sick leave unnecessarily. I have significantly greater confidence in Swedish employees than that. Danish and Finnish employees seem to go to work most of the time, even though no other Nordic country except Sweden has a karens deduction. I do not believe that Swedes are lazier or cheat more than Danes. Does the Minister really believe that?
A sick nursing assistant who goes to the elderly care home because he or she cannot afford the sick pay deduction can infect old and frail people, a sick preschool teacher can infect children and colleagues, and a shop assistant can infect hundreds of customers during a workday. Furthermore, the person who is not given the opportunity to rest when the body says so risks becoming even sicker and being away from work even longer.
Mr. Speaker! There are employers who have seen the problem and the injustice themselves and therefore have compensated their employees for the quarantine deduction. This shows that even if the quarantine deduction entails a cost, the employers benefit economically from the fact that sickness absence as a whole decreases. They come out ahead financially and productivity increases.
The same likely result of a removed quarantine deduction is described in the Minister's letter of investigation, which she has referred to several times and yet has not implemented a single proposal from. In it, it is to be read that although short-term absence will probably increase with a scrapped quarantine deduction – it is not so strange, since people can afford to stay home when they are sick – the sick leaves in total will probably be shorter, because one recovers faster if one rests immediately.
This is what is to be read in the letter investigation that Anna Tenje has referred to several times. Can the fact that Anna Tenje still does not want to see the advantages of a scrapped quarantine deduction be due to ideological blinkers and that she therefore chooses to live in denial?
We Social Democrats want a working life where all people work to the best of their ability, where working conditions do not make them sick, where there is economic security and where people are given the opportunity to get well if they become ill. This is very important to us, and we go to the election with a promise: If we receive the voters' confidence to form a government, we will remove the unfair quarantine deduction.
I wonder: Has Anna Tenje forgotten that the figure of 5–6 billion SEK for the employers' cost for a removed quarantine deduction that Magdalena Andersson refers to comes from the Riksdag's independent investigation service? It is RUT that has arrived at that figure.
Has Anna Tenje forgotten that the Social Democrats' budget motion includes half a billion for the small employers who risk being hit unreasonably hard by a removed quarantine deduction? What does the minister say to the companies that have removed the quarantine and seen that sick leave has not increased but on the contrary has decreased in their companies? Do their employees differ from the rest of the Swedish people, or why does Anna Tenje not want to remove the quarantine deduction?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! The member accuses me of wearing ideological blinkers. This is simply about me safeguarding the Swedish welfare and having respect for the taxpayers' money. I do not promise everything to everyone, and I do not promise around and hold thin, which the Social Democrats seem to have made their great ideological idea.
Mr. Speaker! I cannot understand why one, if one says that this is one's most important election issue, does not finance this in their election budget.
The Speaker refers to the fact that Magdalena Andersson, a year and three months ago, I believe, spoke about how an abolition of the parental leave deduction would cost 5–6 billion. I have also referred to that several times. It is the Riksdag's investigation service that has made that calculation, and it concerns the state's costs for an abolition of the parental leave deduction – the costs for the state budget. I have never questioned this.
That does not show the whole picture. If one also looks at the costs that the government's own working group has developed and at Svenskt Näringsliv's calculations, which lie between 24 and 40 billion, one gets a picture of the whole: What will it cost the state? What will it cost for municipalities and regions? What will it cost for the companies? That is the picture you have not financed.
When the member now truly raises the figure of 5–6 billion that Magdalena Andersson used, why has this not been financed? The 5–6 billion is not included in the Socialdemokraternas budget. One has included the half billion to compensate small and medium-sized enterprises for the large loss when sick leave increases, but that will not at all cover an abolition of the karens deduction. It came from a post-pandemic calculation of what the increased short-term absence cost. The cost will be significantly greater than that.
So, one is holding very thin, and one is not financing one's proposals. Those are the objections I have. If the parties in the labor market agreed to abolish the quarantine deduction – I have great respect for the negotiations that take place between them – I will, of course, not oppose this.
I would also have had significantly greater respect for the Social Democrats' major election promise if it were de facto financed, but it is not. Here, the member stands and speaks about dynamic effects, something that perhaps, possibly should and according to some researchers can occur. I think it is irresponsible. I think it is disrespectful. I definitely do not think it is a good way to handle the taxpayers' money – or if it is the companies that are to foot the bill.
We know what is happening. If sick leave spikes and sick pay costs eat up a lot, it is the wage room that will be nibbled at the edges. Then it is definitely hard-working people who will once again have to foot the bill. If companies are to be compensated, it will cost significantly more than the member gives the impression of, and then it is taxes that will have to be raised for hard-working people. I think one should be honest about that.
It is in no way that I do not see the problems. I definitely do. I understand that it can be very tough for those who are often ill and have small economic margins. But one does not solve that by pushing hard in an election campaign and pretending that this is something that can be done in a heartbeat. I think one should have significantly greater respect for that.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Anna Tenje says that she sees the problem. It is at least grateful. I note, however, that Anna Tenje has not done anything about the problem during the nearly four years she has been the responsible minister. She has not even presented the proposals from the letter investigation, which we agreed upon, about lowering the ceiling for the number of care periods in a year, for example. It would have been simple, if Anna Tenje and the Moderaterna really cared about people with small economic margins. But that is what has been chosen not to do.
I also note that Anna Tenje does not comment at all on the companies that have removed the quarantine deduction and can show that they win financially because sick leave is reduced. Instead, she paints a completely different picture that is in line with what the Moderaterna seem to believe, or at least want to pretend, but does not comment on what reality shows.
I also note that Anna Tenje does not want to comment at all on the fact that the largest party in the government she wants to see wants to remove the karensavdrag in certain occupations but has not shown how it can be done. This is also something that interest organizations and authorities advise against.
It seems, therefore, that there is no plan at all for the tax deduction. If one wants the tax deduction, which is unfair, to be removed, one must vote for the Social Democrats. That is the conclusion of this debate.
People should not become poorer because they are sick. People should not have to go to work while sick, infect colleagues, users, and others, and do themselves a disservice because they cannot afford to stay home. We shall have a society where we take care of each other when it is needed, and then that unfair sickness deduction shall be removed. The companies will win, the public employers will win, and the employees will win.
With that, I would like to thank the Minister for all the debates during the parliamentary term on the important social security issues and wish Anna Tenje good luck with the candidacy for the municipal council in Växjö, I believe that was it. I hope it goes well, but I hope it goes a different way in the parliamentary election.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I must say that I draw a completely different conclusion from this debate than the member did. Still, I cannot help but thank you for all the debates we have had. They have been very refreshing.
The conclusion from today's debate is rather that a vote for the Social Democrats in the autumn election is a lottery. They count on dynamic effects, because they do not want to talk about the budget hole of approximately 50 billion that they have – and furthermore, they present new election promises every day where there is a lack of funding. They speak broadly and explain that we are making up figures. They say it is not true when both Svenskt Näringsliv, the Riksdag's investigation service, and the government's own working group have shown that it will cost significantly more money to abolish the care deduction. I am worried about this. It is a way we do not want Sweden's economy to be managed.
I can also observe that the member, in their second speech, mentioned Denmark and Finland but chose not to mention Norway at all. In that country, they have tested abolishing the quarantine deduction, and there we see that sick leave and sick pay costs have become sky-high – despite having the world's healthiest people. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that even people who live, reside, and work in Sweden and move to Norway experience higher sick leave.
This hits hard-working people who go to work particularly hard. We know that it hits the welfare professions most of all. The nursing assistant at the special housing facility will have to struggle when colleagues do not come to work. The buses will stand still when the bus drivers also do not come to work. This will not benefit hard-working people but rather make them go to their knees.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.