Response to interpellations 2023/24:735 and 745 on safety representatives
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns safety representatives and their connection to trade union organizations. L argues that the government has tasked the Swedish Work Environment Authority to propose measures so that more people will want to become safety representatives 1 and that the government wants to strengthen both union and non-union safety representatives 2. L emphasizes that it must be voluntary to engage in the union 2 and that the government wants a functioning systematic work environment management to reduce mortality rates 3. V argues that trade union organizations must appoint safety representatives to ensure workers' safety 4 and that the union's priority has created order and security 5. V sees it as concerning that the government wants to weaken the connection between unions and safety representatives 5. S argues that trade union organizations give safety representatives a strength that unorganized ones lack 6 and that the government should proceed with proposals to strengthen regional safety representatives 7. S suggests that money should be invested in regional safety representatives so that more people can get involved 8. S argues that the government does not know what it wants 9 10.
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)
Madam Speaker! Ciczie Weidby has asked me what measures I intend to take in light of the Swedish Work Environment Authority's report and whether I still consider that measures need to be taken so that more employees than today will want to engage as safety representatives, regardless of whether the safety representatives or the employees have a trade union affiliation or not. Given that is the case, she has finally asked me what measures I intend to take.
Johanna Haraldsson has asked me what I consider to be relevant measures to take so that more people will want to engage as safety representatives at their workplace.
I would like to start by thanking you for the questions and for the commitment to the matter, which I share.
The Government decided on 14 September 2023 on a mandate to the Swedish Work Environment Authority to submit proposals for measures, approaches, initiatives or similar that can lead to more employees wanting to engage as safety representatives (A2023/01237). As stated in the mandate, the safety representatives have an important role in creating safe and secure workplaces and in representing all employees at the workplace, regardless of whether the safety representatives or the employees have a trade union affiliation or not. The Government also noted in the mandate that the number of workplace accidents has increased in recent years and that the employers' cooperation with safety representatives is important to reduce the risk of fatal accidents and other serious accidents.
From the Swedish Work Environment Authority's report, it appears, among other things, that the number of trade union-appointed local safety representatives in Sweden has increased slightly since 2020. If one counts the number of safety representatives per employee, there has, however, been a decrease. This is due to the fact that the number of employees has increased. There is a lack of access to data on the number of safety representatives who are not appointed by trade union organizations.
Arbetsmiljöverket submitted its report on the government assignment on 29 April 2024, and the matter is now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking you for the answer but can state that the Minister does not answer my questions. Instead, Paulina Brandberg describes the government's mandate to Arbetsmiljöverket and their report. It does not appear at all whether Minister Paulina Brandberg still considers that measures need to be taken so that more employees than today will want to engage as safety representatives, regardless of whether the safety representatives or the employees have a trade union affiliation or not.
To be appointed as a safety representative is not just a task but a responsibility that rests quite heavily on one's shoulders. That this task should fall to the trade union organizations specifically is not just a wise idea but a necessity to ensure the employees' well-being and safety in the workplace.
Madam Speaker! The report from the Swedish Work Environment Authority is 22 pages long and provides a very clear picture of what is needed so that more people will want to engage as safety representatives. It was submitted to the government just over two weeks ago. Reasonably, Paulina Brandberg should have had time to review the report and consider what measures would need to be taken. I give Paulina Brandberg the chance to actually answer my questions regarding what measures the Minister intends that need to be taken in light of the report. I am also curious whether Paulina Brandberg still believes that measures are needed so that more than today will want to engage as safety representatives, regardless of whether they have a trade union affiliation or not. What measures does the Minister, in that case, believe should be taken?
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Like Ciczie Weidby, I can state that I have not received any answer to my question in the Minister's opening statement. I hope that I will receive it during the course of the debate.
When the government gave the assignment to Arbetsmiljöverket to review how to create conditions for employees to want to engage as safety representatives, the trade union movement reacted strongly to a wording where, from the government's side, no distinction was made between safety representatives appointed by the union and other safety representatives.
A union safety representative and an unorganized safety representative have completely different conditions for carrying out their mandate. The trade union organizations provide their safety representatives with support, training, and advice. In a sharp situation, the trade union organization can also sue an employer who prevents a safety representative from carrying out their mandate. The unions give the safety representatives a strength that an unorganized safety representative lacks. No matter how knowledgeable and ambitious an unorganized safety representative is, she cannot put power behind the words when there is no one to back her up.
Another reason for the strong reaction from the labor organizations is the government parties' previous statements and motions in the Riksdag. The Sweden Democrats and the Liberals, encouraged by the other right-wing parties, have wanted to take the strength of the safety representatives away from them by separating them from the unions and abolishing the union's right of priority to appoint safety representatives, which they have today. The parties have also wanted to abolish the regional safety representatives. One can therefore assume that the unions simply saw a great risk that the Liberals, together with the Sweden Democrats, could use the report from the Work Environment Authority as a basis to push through the changes that they have been pushing for in the Riksdag for several years. These changes would leave workers without representatives in safety matters and weaken the work environment work in the workplaces.
The governing parties have defended their mandate to Arbetsmiljöverket by stating that there is a shortage of safety representatives and that it is important for politics to take initiative to reverse that development. Now the report has arrived, and in it it is stated that support from colleagues and employers is required and that there is a positive image of the mandate for people to want to become safety representatives. One also needs to have sufficient time to perform the mandate, knowledge, and access to further education. A network outside the workplace is also highlighted as an important prerequisite. It is also argued that the parties in the labor market have the knowledge and the forums needed to create good conditions for employees to want to engage as safety representatives. In the report, it is therefore left to the parties to take the initiatives that are required.
Safety representatives have an immensely important role as representatives for everyone who works at the workplace in terms of protection against ill health and accidents. That is something we completely agree on. It is important that conditions are created as favorable as possible for safety representatives to carry out their mission. I return to the point that the report highlights that the parties themselves – unions and employer organizations – are best suited to manage this.
My question, in addition to the one I did not receive an answer to in the initial post, is whether you will do as is emphasized in the report that it should be done and leave the question to the parties.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellants for the important debate we have here today!
The report that has now been submitted to the government perhaps does not quite say what the government had hoped for. Many of us others are not very surprised by the answer. The report says exactly what has already been accounted for here, namely that the parties are best suited to answer the question of how to strengthen safety representatives out at our workplaces.
It is a bit uncertain what the government thinks about the report. I hope that we can get some indications on what the minister and the government say about it. We do, however, know what they wanted to read in the report, and those are not the answers it provides. We also know that the largest party in the government base, Sverigedemokraterna, is not satisfied with the answers. It is very difficult for them to claim otherwise.
Then the question is how one chooses to proceed with this. The organized trade union movement was concerned about the report being presented and wondered what the government would do.
Now it is being said here that it is the parties who are to handle this and strengthen the safety representatives. Then I wonder what is being prepared in the Government Offices. Is it about proposals that we are not aware of, that have not been on the table previously and that have not been announced? What is actually being prepared?
One is perhaps quite satisfied with the report. Or is it tasks that should be given to the parties? Is it such conversations that should be conducted?
I know that the Minister has previously been careful to point out that talks are held with the parties on a regular basis. Is this something that characterizes the agenda when you meet the parties LO and Svenskt Näringsliv? What is said then? It would be interesting to know. It is indeed important that safety representatives get a stronger position in the labor market.
What else is to be done? The Minister is welcome to answer the question. We did leave some things in the desk drawer when the Minister moved into the department, for example, how to strengthen the regional safety representatives. It is fully investigated, and there are proposals. Has the Minister looked in the desk drawer, picked up the proposal, looked at it and analyzed it? Is it perhaps this that is being prepared in the Government Offices? It would be pleasant if the Minister could give us answers about this here in the chamber.
If one has made a shift in position and is prepared to strengthen the safety representatives, because it is very important, perhaps one should proceed with the proposals on how to strengthen the regional safety representatives.
Why is it then so important to strengthen the regional safety representatives? Well, it is they who are involved in supporting and recruiting more local safety representatives. That is how you strengthen the entire safety work and work environment work that is needed out there. They possess in-depth knowledge and drive the issues together with the local safety representatives.
The question is whether we will see any such proposals from the government.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I am a bit surprised. We have spent quite a lot of time here in the chamber to talk about the assignment to Arbetsmiljöverket. I have even stood and read out from the assignment. Still, it seems that we still have to discuss whether the government has taken the initiative for any constitutional amendment to separate safety representatives from the unions.
I really do not know how much clearer I must be, but I encourage the members to read the government decision beforehand. There is nothing in this decision that concerns separating the safety representatives from the unions. That is my clear message here, and it has been my clear message all along. I do not know in what way I can become any clearer on this issue.
The mission is about the government taking a concrete measure because we believe it is a problem that too few engage as local safety representatives. I do not know if the previous government did not think this was a problem, but it did not act on the issue in any case. We are acting and have given a mandate to Arbetsmiljöverket which concerns precisely this.
I do not understand where the perception comes from that the government would in any way want to make it worse for the labor organizations to appoint safety representatives. On the other hand, we think that all safety representatives are important.
I hope that I have now finally been able to be sufficiently clear on the issue.
The government has now received this report. As expected, there are of course no proposals for constitutional amendments, because as mentioned, that was not included in the assignment. Our plan is now to listen to what representatives for the employer and employee organizations have to say about the report. We plan two dialogue meetings with these representatives, according to the same model we had when we talked about the fatal accidents in working life, which were on the agenda a short time ago.
It would be irresponsible of me as a minister to anticipate the process and issue a statement before we have clearly listened to what the parties say about this and before we have gone through the report and the proposals contained in it. When the process is finished, we will, of course, return with a statement on which measures we will proceed with.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! One can sense a certain frustration in Paulina Brandberg. She says that she is surprised by how we nag and persist. But at least I, and perhaps also some of the other speakers, am also a bit surprised by how difficult it seems for the Minister to give an answer or a statement.
What the State Secretary is saying now is that she will sit down with the parties and listen to them. That is truly commendable. But I promise you, Paulina Brandberg, that the parties will not say anything different now than they always have. They will not say anything different than what is stated in the report.
In the report, it is very clear that support, time, and knowledge are needed so that more people will want to engage in the role of safety representative. These are the absolutely most important things that every single organization - LO, TCO, Saco, Ledarna, and Företagarna - talk about. They say that what is needed is precisely support, time, and knowledge.
This is quite easy to rectify. One can simply read in many of the motions, for example those I have written in the matter. There it states how we must protect the safety representatives and ensure that they constantly receive support and time to carry out their mission. They must receive support from the employer. One must view the mission as a safety representative positively. Continuous training is necessary, so that the representatives constantly renew their knowledge.
With the risk of sounding tedious, I am, and probably the other debaters are, astonished by how much the Minister evades taking the issue seriously. If the Minister is so very engaged in the role of safety representatives and in ensuring that more people can become safety representatives, then this 22-page report is merely a foregone conclusion.
There has, by the way, been some criticism of the report, hardly surprising from Svenskt Näringsliv. They think it is unfortunate that the report does not live up to expectations at all. They had, therefore, expected a different answer than what came in the report. Svenskt Näringsliv questions whether Arbetsmiljöverket has actually fulfilled its mandate. I become curious as to whether the Minister shares Svenskt Näringsliv's view that it is unfortunate that the report does not live up to expectations.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit strange that the Minister says she is surprised and wonders how much clearer she can be. Here in the chamber, party colleagues of mine have requested that the Minister promise that she will not move forward with any change regarding the unions' priority right to appoint safety representatives. She has not been able to do that. That we continue to ask whether one still has the ambition to do this is hardly something to be surprised about.
The Minister asks from where we have received our perception. I accounted for that in my first contribution. The perception we have received is that these parties - most clearly the Sweden Democrats but also very clearly the Liberals - have previously driven the issue of separating safety representatives from the unions and abolishing the regional safety representatives.
The Liberals' motion on the working environment from the autumn of 2021 was the last motion the Liberals raised in this area before the election. Now that one sits in a government position, one does not, for natural reasons, raise any motions. In this motion, it states: "The regional safety representatives should be replaced by a new and more purposefully designed function. The main rule for the local safety representatives should no longer be that they shall be appointed by the local workers' organizations."
That is where the perception comes from, and that is also where the concern in the matter comes from. This has been liberal policy. To calm that concern, the Minister needs to be clear. She needs to promise not to touch this regulation during the mandate period.
It is very strange that the Minister says it would be irresponsible to have an opinion. I know that all political parties have opinions on very many different issues. The Minister has previously highlighted this issue as decisive and this report as a decisive basis in order to be able to achieve a better working environment in the workplaces. To then be unable to answer how she will take the report further is very strange, I think.
The Left Party's representative in this debate, Ciczie Weidby, pointed out that criticism has come from various sides regarding this report. Criticism has also come from the Sweden Democrats, who reacted negatively to the report. The Sweden Democrat chairman of the Committee on Employment and Labour expressed his dissatisfaction in a written question to the Minister last week, where he argues that "large parts are missing in the investigation" because it does not address the issue of "requirements for union membership for safety representatives" and that the assignment therefore "must be regarded as not completed."
It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats continue to have the same position as they had previously and question the safety representatives' connection to the unions. I would, of course, like to ask: Does the Minister consider that the Work Environment Authority has fulfilled its mission with the report, or does she agree with the Sweden Democrats?
There are proposals. The Minister claims that the Social Democrats did nothing. But just as my colleague Sofia Amloh highlights here in the debate, there is a proposal on the Minister's desk regarding expanded access rights. The proposal implies that more money should be invested in the regional safety representatives so that they can do the job of ensuring that, for example, more people can become involved as safety representatives or enter workplaces and give more people representation in the important issues regarding the working environment.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! We are still receiving no answers. There are ready-made proposals, which we have presented and which I mentioned in my previous contribution, but the Minister does not respond. If one now wants to strengthen something that the parties consider would have this effect, I think it is legitimate to question how much the government wants to strengthen safety representatives and how much one is actually prepared to do when day after day passes without the Minister doing anything with the proposals that are on the table.
Is it the case that there are ideological blinkers, or is it the case that there is a government base in the form of the Sweden Democrats who do not want this? We do not really know where the government itself stands. What we know is that the minister's party, the Liberals, have previously pursued a policy that stands in contrast to strengthening safety representatives.
It lies somewhat in the role of politics to have opinions and hold views on matters. I think it is important that the Minister does that. It is time to do it. It is not that we do not hear and cannot read beforehand, which was some kind of answer the Minister previously gave us. What we wonder about is why the Minister so willingly wants unorganized and weak safety representatives. Why are the organized safety representatives, which we know play such a large role, not being strengthened? There are proposals, and there is work to be done. Why is it not being done?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I can take up the thread that Member Amloh concluded with: Why are the union safety representatives not being strengthened? But that is precisely what we are doing! With this assignment, we are saying that we want to see how we can get more people to engage as safety representatives. We are, of course, not excluding the union ones, and we do not need to choose between the union and the non-union. We want to strengthen both the union and the non-union.
It is absolutely true that in our country there are different regulatory frameworks and that there is a different protection for the trade union safety representatives. They are covered, as we all know, by the trust representative act, in contrast to the non-union ones, who are covered by the work environment act. But it is also a fact that not all employees in our country want to engage in the union or organize themselves. It must still be voluntary to engage in the union. Even those who do not want to engage unionally should be able to engage as local safety representatives, because we need all local safety representatives.
It has been just over two weeks since this report was submitted. It is a reasonable order that it is being processed and that we are now holding these meetings with representatives from the employee and employer organizations, so that we succeed in finding which measures are the best and most effective to strengthen the role of all safety representatives.
The question regarding the regional safety representatives also came up. In response to my pointing out that the previous government did nothing regarding the local safety representatives, Member Haraldsson pointed to the assignment concerning the regional safety representatives. However, my criticism was directed at the lack of measures when it came to the local safety representatives.
When it comes to the regional safety representatives, there is indeed an investigation. I believe that both the interpellants and Member Amloh are aware that some referral bodies have questioned the method and objectivity of this evaluation. There are differing opinions on how the investigation should be viewed, and it is of course important that we listen to them carefully.
What the government has done in the recent past is that on April 4 this year, we tasked Arbetsmiljöverket with providing a proposal for a new model for reporting on regional safety representative activities. This is a model that is to be developed in consultation with the labor organizations LO, TCO, Saco, and Svenska hamnarbetarförbundet. The assignment is to be reported in connection with the annual report for 2025 in a special report to the Government Offices. I, of course, look forward very much to that report, because we need all different types of safety representatives to achieve better systematic work environment management at our workplaces.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! The rule in the Work Environment Act that safety representatives shall be appointed by a local workers' organization was added in 1951. The reason was very practical. Few people wanted to be safety representatives, and the election was quite complicated. Since 1951, the union has therefore had the so-called right of first refusal to appoint safety representatives. This is very good, as it has created order, structure, and security. The union ensures that the election is conducted correctly and that the representative represents the wage earners. The union also protects against harassment from the employer. In that way, the representative can safely point out deficiencies. The union is also a guarantor for decisions made. The union representatives are trained and possess knowledge about the work environment.
Madam Speaker! The Government says it wants to safeguard and defend the Swedish model together with the labor market partners. I very often hear the Minister singing the praises of the Swedish model.
If one still wants to defend the Swedish model, I view it as very concerning that, in just this issue, one wants to step in and drive a wedge and weaken the connection between unions and safety representatives.
I assume that the government and Paulina Brandberg will return fairly soon with the specific measures required so that more people will want to become safety representatives. One only has to look at the report. Time, support, and knowledge were needed.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Madam Speaker! It becomes clear in the debate that the government does not quite know what it is doing. The Minister obviously does not understand when I try to explain to the Minister the connection between the regional and the local safety representatives.
The reason I am highlighting the issue of the regional safety representatives is that the regional safety representatives have a mandate to support safety work in workplaces as representatives of the employees. But they are also to recruit and support new safety representatives.
It also concerns those who have been safety representatives for a longer period but who feel that they themselves cannot manage the assignment. They then have the regional safety representatives as support. An important measure to get more people to want to engage as safety representatives is that the regional safety representatives are present at more workplaces.
If the Minister wants to do something that would truly strengthen the work environment work and the safety representatives and not let themselves be controlled by the Sverigedemokraterna, there is a ready proposal. One can invest in the regional safety representatives and give them the right to visit more workplaces.
But the minister's only answer is that it is being prepared. How long shall it be prepared? When will the minister decide? She also cannot promise here in the chamber that she will not present a proposal where safety representatives are separated from the trade union movement, even though everything points to the fact that exactly that would weaken safety representatives and worsen the working environment.
When the government knows what it wants and when one considers an issue to be important and has support from Sverigedemokraterna, it gets done. We have seen several examples of that. But either this issue is not important enough, or one does not know what one wants, or one is not in agreement with the party that actually governs the government. The lack of an answer from the minister means that we can only guess what applies in this issue.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit strange that the government is accused of thinking that the issue of safety representatives is not important enough when the entire debate is about a mandate that the government has given to the Swedish Work Environment Authority and which the previous government did not give.
From the government's side, we believe that safety representatives fulfill a very important function in our workplaces. We need to have a functioning systematic work environment management at our workplaces, not least in order to be able to reduce the appalling death tolls that we have seen in the statistics recently. It is one of the government's measures to address this.
I would like to thank you for today's debate. The Government will, of course, provide an announcement on how we proceed with the Arbetsmiljöverket report when that preparatory process is complete.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.