Tag: Employment Service

Law on Employment Protection reviewed

employment law affects everyone
pic: hungarianinsider

The government’s commission to assess the current Law on Employment Protection (lagen om anställningsskydd, better known as “las”) came out with its report yesterday, and no one in the government is happy.

There are basically two reasons a person in Sweden can be fired: for lack of work, and for personal reasons. Under current rules, if employees need to be terminated due to a lack of work (and if they basically have the same qualifications) it has to be done in accordance with last-in, first-out rules. If two employees were hired at the same time, the younger one has to go first. Also, when a person is let go for these reasons, they must also be hired back first, if there is work available within nine months or so of being let go (given that they have given notice that they are interested in being rehired).

There are some legal exceptions to this rule. For employers with a certain number of employees, a certain number of exceptions to this last-in, first-out rule may be made. In other words, if an employer has an employee they think is really good, they can make this person their exception and someone who has been there longer can be asked to leave instead.

Furthermore, if a person is let go they can have a long wait before they actually stop working where they have been let go, depending on how long they have worked at the company. The wait time for having to leave can be several months during which time the employee is paid per normal. This has been made a rule so that an employee has some time to make the adjustment if the termination comes as a shock.

For a person to be let go for personal reasons – if they are really messing up their job due to, for example, negligence, difficulties working with others, refusing to do the work, if they’re harassing other people – the rules are strict. The employer basically has to do every possible thing in their power to keep on a person, even if the person can’t really do the job for which they were once hired to do. In general, a employee can only be let go after a thorough investigation into all other possibilities for this person to remain in their job or at the company. If they aren’t getting along with the other employees, the company is obligated to see if the person can be moved to another department, for example. This also prevents employers from being able to fire workers who happen to land on their employer’s wrong side for some random reason.

Among other things, the commissions suggestions include allowing more exceptions to the last-in, first-out rule. From around two exceptions for a ten-person company, for example, five exemptions could be made. Furthermore, companies with less than 15 employees will not have to give personal reasons (negligence, etc.) for firing a person. For the employee, on the other hand, an employer is required to increase the amount of on-the-job training and education (kompetensutveckling) to keep the workforce up to date with changes in the field.

The main fear of these changes is that the conditions for the employee will be less secure, and that they will open up for discriminatory firings. For the employer, there would be more freedom to keep the employees they want to keep and to let go the ones they don’t think are a fit.

The commission’s report was not an unexpected event. In fact, it was a condition for the support of the Liberal and Center parties for the Social Democrats to remain in power. Back in the fall of 2018 when no party won a clear majority, the Center and Liberal parties agreed to support the Social Democrats as long as they began an investigation into changing the las-laws.

In reality, a change in these rules is that last thing the government wants to be responsible for. The first-in, last-out rules are almost engraved in stone in Social Democrat ideology and it would be devastating for them to have the rules changed, especially if they are not unequivocally positive for the worker, especially if the changes are made during their watch.

As luck would have it, maybe, the yearly negotiations between various unions under the umbrella of the Swedish Labour Organisation (LO) and the employers’ representation (Svensk näringsliv), which were put on hold due to Covid, are soon to resume (see this post for more info). If the two representatives can reach an agreement, then the commission’s report will be moot. If they can’t though, it will remain to the government to enforce the commission’s report.

Unfortunately for them, the Left party has vowed to bring a no-confidence vote to the floor if the government does just that. The Sweden Democrats have said they would back that no-confidence vote, and even the Moderates and Christian Democrats might go along with it, if only to bring down the Social Democratic government. This would pretty much be the height of irony since the Moderates, Christian Democrats and the right parties currently supporting the government have been pushing for these changes to las for a long, long time. The Moderates and Christian Democrats would be bringing down the government because of changes they have pushed for for years.

On the other hand, if the Social Democrats refuse to enact the changes, their supporting parties the Liberals and the Center parties may renege on the January agreement – which would also bring the government down. So far, the government hasn’t made a lot of progress on the 73-point plan that was the backbone of the Liberal and Center parties’ January agreement (januariavtalet). This would be another blow to the agreement, coming on the back of their failure to reform the Swedish Employment Agency (Arbetsförmedlingen) which was also one of the 73 points. This failure was largely due to Covid, but still, it doesn’t look good.

Everyone will be hoping that the negotiations between LO and Svensk naringsliv will be fruitful. Not only because these negotiations have kept Swedish labor unrest at a minimum and have therefore increased the attractiveness of the Swedish market, but also because there are enough problems in Sweden and the wider world already. Still, even LO is split these days (see this post, again), so who knows if the negotiations mentioned above will be honored by the unions who have bowed out of LO.

It’s all very messy, but that’s politics.

9 Dec. – political Twister

strange political twists
pic: amazon.com

As expected, the government and its partners, the Center and Liberal parties, agreed today to postpone and rethink the Employment Service’s reform and privatisation. As written about in this post and this post, Jonas Sjöstedt threatened to bring a vote of no confidence to the floor if the government didn’t stop the reform. The Sweden Democrats (SD), as well as the Moderate and Christian Democratic parties, hopped on the Left party’s train. This was an unexpected development for the government, never having imagined these parties to side with each other on anything.

After a weekend of negotiations with the Center and Liberal parties – the Center party being the main instigator of the Service’s privatisation to begin with – the government has proposed a new timetable for the reform. As Göran Eriksson at SvD puts it, the government backed off on all the points that SD and the Moderate, Christian Democratic and Left parties agreed upon and had a majority in parliament to back it up with, but kept the points that those parties didn’t agree on and didn’t therefore have a parliamentary majority on. In other words, the government satisfied the SD, Moderate and Christian Democratic demands, but not all of the Left party’s demands. How the Center, for whom this matter was close to the heart, is going to frame the postponement remains to be seen.

The gist of the new proposal is that “the law of free system choice” (Lagen om valfrihetssystem, or LOV) will not be the only regulation implemented for employment actors ( – so not just private employment companies will be allowed to help job seekers, but also public organizations like the current employment service and even voluntary organisations can be involved). The government has also gone along with instituting a control system so that there is some kind of check on which companies are being paid from public coffers for doing what. Finally, the reform timetable is being put off a year, to 2022 (DN.se/reform).

So the government is saved, and what remains is how the parties are spinning it. Liberal party leader Nyamko Sabuni, one of the government’s supporting parties, is insisting (despite all evidence to the contrary) that the Left party had no influence over the government’s decision (according to the January agreement that allowed Löfven to hold onto power, the Left party is not “allowed” to have any influence over government policy). The Moderate party is calling the Liberal statement “nonsense“. As previously noted in this blog, Löfven is likely delighted over the postponement.

What he is likely not at all delighted about is this newfound spirit of cooperation between opposition parties with completely different political bents. It is hard to see where they might cooperate next (and they’re certainly not saying) but who knows. The Left party didn’t mind using public support from SD to get their way – gasp – which was also somewhat interesting (they didn’t have lunch or anything though). The Moderate party leader has had lunch with the SD leader Jimmie Åkesson just recently, but now has also just backed the Left party.

What bizarre political constellations can possibly follow?

21 Nov. – another no confidence motion in the works

Sjöstedt has no confidence
pic: Jessica Gow/TT

Jonas Sjöstedt, leader of the Left Party, has threatened to set a no confidence vote into motion against Minister for Employment Eva Nordmark (read about no confidence votes here). Sjöstedt has made five demands, of which the first one is the big one:

  1. the government stops the privatisation of the Swedish Public Employment Service, aka Arbetsförmedlingen,
  2. the government allocates extra funds to stabilize the Employment Service’s ongoing work,
  3. the government creates an economically detailed and timely plan for stopping the closing of Employment Service offices, and ensures a continued presence across the country creates a plan and make the necessary decisions in the law or in regulations to maintain and develop the Employment Service’s special competencies regarding special needs and support for the disabled,
  4. the government states that any reform of the Employment Services will first be fully investigated in all relevant aspects, including cost estimates and transition procedures, before any part of the Employment Service is changed. An important part of this investigation is how municipalities’ responsibilities and economic situation is affected.

Reforming the Employment Service was a condition set by the Center Party to not vote down the Social Democrats in their bid to remain in power after the last election. Together with the Liberal party, the Center party and the two government parties agreed to a 73 point plan (also known as the January Agreement) that was filled with demands, including a total change in how the Employment Service was set up.

Many of the changes were anathema to Social Democratic voters, let alone Left party voters. The point that likely most sticks in the Left party’s craw is where it says ““This agreement means that the Left Party will not have influence over the political direction in Sweden during the coming term of office” (socialdemocraterna.se).

Sjöstedt is now considering calling the government’s bluff. Only together with the Left party does the government, together with the support from the Center and Liberal parties guaranteed by the government fulfilling the 73-point agreement, have the votes to pass legislation. Up until now, and even with the clause that was created to shut them out, the Left party has not withdrawn their support for the government: The alternative was clearly worse for them.

However, it seems that the Left party’s acquiescence is over, and that they’re even willing to accept support for their no-confidence motion from political opponents. The Sweden Democrats are already 100% behind the Left party’s idea, and even the Moderate Party is considering it. “We want to unseat all this government’s ministers, so it’s very likely that we’ll go along with a vote of no confidence” remarked Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats. Although reforming the Employment Service has been part of their platform for a long time, the Moderate party has problems with how it’s been implemented. Group leader for the Moderate party in Parliament, Tobias Billström, commented that although the Left and Moderate parties have very different ideas on how the Service should be run, the current plans for reforming it are “poorly thought out and badly instituted” and lack parliamentary support, to boot (SvD.se/Nordmark).

The question is what the government can do to appease the Left party, while not alienating the Center party. Also the Liberal party is left in a crunch situation: they went along with supporting a Social Democratic government largely to keep the Sweden Democrats isolated,and only as long as the January Agreement was upheld by all sides. If the government downshifts on its commitment to the agreement, the Liberals will be left hanging, and this when they are only just barely above the 4% threshold.

Sjöstedt has said that the government has two weeks to respond before he makes a no confidence motion.