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.

5 Dec. – saving Unemployment and face

future uncertain
pic: Per Gudmundson, SvD

Remember back in November, when Jonas Sjöstedt threatened to bring a no confidence vote to the floor to protest the government’s plan to completely reform the Swedish Public Employment Service (better known as Arbetsförmedlingen)? If you forgot, there’s a post to read about it here. And if you didn’t, well, time is almost up. If nothing happens, the vote of no confidence on Eva Nordmark, Minister for Employment, will happen on Tuesday.

When Sjöstedt, leader of the Left party, first made this threat, he was not just protesting the disassembly and privatisation of the Employment Service, but also the provision of the January Agreement that said that under no circumstances was the Left party to have any influence over government policy. The provision was stipulated by the Center and Liberal parties specifically as a requirement for their support for the formation of the Löfven government.

It’s understandable that this was part of the Left party’s anger, as the government is absolutely dependent on the Left party to stay in power (otherwise they don’t have the votes to pass their budget). Still, it was likely the government thought that they were safe because the Left party would never vote with the Sweden Democrats, and the two right block parties, to topple them…

Until today, it turned out, when the Left party became willing to do just that. Apparently, the meetings held between the Social Democrats and the Left party have not been assuaging enough. The Left party is determined to change the course of the government in respect to the current privatisation of the Employment Service.

Despite the appearance of a wrench being thrown into the disassembly work, threats being tossed about, and very serious looks on all party leader’s faces, it’s likely most of them are glad for Sjöstedt’s moves. The Unemployment Services’ quick and dirty disassembly was causing a lot of worry and problems at the municipal level: When workers are getting unemployment help they do it through the Employment Service. Without an Employment Service office nearby, the sooner the unemployed would turn to the local municipality for help – and that would be expensive, as well as more than the municipalities thought they could handle.

With the way things were going, it looked like a disaster was shaping up. Despite having previously been very much in favor of dismantling the Employment Service, the Moderate party and the Christian Democrats are now saying that they have always thought the deconstruction was going too quickly, and that’s why they are backing Sjöstedt. They are also happy when their former Alliance parties, the Center and Liberal parties, don’t get what they said they were going to get by leaving the Alliance and throwing their support behind the Social Democrats: If they can make the Center and Liberal parties look bad, the Moderate and Christian Democrats won’t be fussy about how.

Even Löfven is secretly happy because he has definitely not been a fan of this process, but was forced into moving quickly by the Center and Liberal parties and the agreement they signed back in January. The Left, Moderate, and Christian Democratic parties are actually doing him a favour if he can get out of it.

What remains to be done is for Löfven to spend the next few days finding ways to pacify the Center and Liberal party leaders and help them find ways to save face when the Unemployment Service is now not going to be disassembled as rapidly as first imagined. The Center and Liberal parties know that if the no confidence vote goes through, the government will be significantly weakened and they could find themselves on their own. A way to avoid this is most likely going to be found.

Meanwhile, Minister Eva Nordmark must be feeling a bit like a punching bag. A no confidence vote is supposed to mark no confidence in the Minister. The Left, Moderate, and Christian Democratic parties, plus the Sweden Democrats, though, are not actually protesting her, or the way she is doing her job: They’re using a no confidence vote against her to not just protest a current political course of action, but to get back at the government and its supporting parties. It’s going to be hard to see any impressed faces on the voters anytime soon.

11 Nov. – a name, a vote, and a meeting

can this wave be stopped?
pic: watersource.awa.asn.au

In the wake of the shooting and the explosion over the weekend, that the police now suspect are connected, there are several actions in the works: the police have labelled their response an “extraordinary operation” (särskilt händelse), the Moderate party has said they are behind the Sweden Democrats’ decision to call a vote of no confidence in Minister for Justice Morgan Johansson, and the Malmö police are organizing a special conference, with the local criminals.

Only the terrorist attack on the pedestrians on Drottninggatan in April of 2017, and the forest fires in the summer of 2018, have previously been classified as “extraordinary operations” by the police department. The current operation is being called Operation Rimfrost (hoarfrost in English), and allows the police department to make the decision-making process faster and increases their authority to reprioritize and move police forces around. “The number of persons in criminal networks shall be reduced by force” said Stefan Hector, chief of operations for NOA, the national operations division, “by which we mean arrests, charges and sentencing.” The police hope to seize more weapons and explosives as well. “In about 6 months we will have seen a difference” Hector predicted (SvD.se/rimfrost).

In related news, the Sweden Democrats have said they will be bringing a motion of no confidence in Minister for Justice Johansson to the floor at the party leader debate on Wednesday – and the Moderate party has said they will support it. Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats, declared that it was “obvious that the Minister for Justice, who in this case has the ultimate responsibility to handle this situation, does not understand its seriousness. He can’t handle it, and therefore parliament should in some way make clear its dissatisfaction with the work that is unfortunately not happening” (SR.se/Åkesson).

Moderate party leader Ulf Kristersson echoed his colleague. “It is right to direct a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Justice. For the last five years, he has been ultimately responsible for the situation we’ve arrived at in Sweden. It’s untenable. Either the minister does his job or he takes the consequences and resigns. We will be voting no confidence” (SR.se/Åkesson).

For a vote of no confidence to go through, at least 35 parliament members need to demand it. If a majority in parliament (175 members) vote yes, the minister in question must resign. So far, in Swedish history, there have only been nine – count ’em, nine – votes of no confidence. None of them has ever resulted in a minister’s resignation.

As far the other more right parties go, the Liberals have said they will not support a vote of no confidence, but that the government must “take vigorous measures against gangs.” The Christian Democrats haven’t yet commented. It is unlikely in the extreme that the more left Green or Center party will support it, altogether making the resignation of Johansson equally unlikely. The Moderate party’s youth wing, MuF, went its mother party one better and demanded a vote of no confidence in not just the Minister of Justice Johansson, but also on Minister for Home Affairs Mikael Damberg (DN.se/MuF). That one won’t be going anywhere, for the moment at least.

Meanwhile, the local police in Malmö have called a meeting for Tuesday. With the local criminals. The criminals that come don’t have to be the most violent ones, or the leaders – as long as they have legitimacy and that the others “listen when they talk” said Glen Sjögren, coordinator the “Stop Shooting” project (read more about the project here).

“We’re giving them a message – that we don’t want them to die and we don’t want them to kill someone. If they, or someone in their group, commit a crime involving lethal violence or explosives we’re going to focus on their whole group. If they want to leave their criminal life behind them, we’re ready to help them with that too” said Sjögren. “The goal is to stop the current crime wave and to prevent an escalation” (DN.se/slutaskjuta).

It seems like it’s all hands on deck, but whether or not talking leads to actions and then to an effect is anyone’s guess.