NationStates Jolt Archive

* Skip to main content, accesskey 's'
* Homepage, accesskey '1'

Financial Times FT.com
FT.com logo

WORLD
Europe

* Close

Swedish unions rail at benefit cuts

By David Ibison in Stockholm

Published: December 5 2006 02:00 | Last updated: December 5 2006 02:00

Sweden's powerful trade unions accused the recently elected centre-right government yesterday of using benefit reforms to undermine organised labour.

Wanja Lundby-Wedin, chairwoman of Landsorganisationen (LO), which represents 15 unions with 1.83m members, said proposed cuts in unemployment benefits were designed to reduce union membership.

Speaking ahead of nationwide protests against the proposed cuts, Ms Lundby-Wedin said the moves by government of Fredrik Reinfeldt, the prime minister, were a threat to the Swedish model in which unions, industry and employers co-operated closely.

"We have a government that has a way of looking at the labour market that is neo-liberal, even though they don't say it," said Ms Lundby-Wedin.

The escalating rhetoric and coming demonstrations mark the first big test for the government of Mr Reinfeldt since he led his alliance to a historic election in September that ousted the Social Democrats after 12 years.

"The government knows the strength of the trade unions comes from the fact we have 80 per cent or more of workers organised," Ms Lundby-Wedin said.

"But if that goes down to 55 per cent, we will be less effective . . . They want us with less power."

Sweden's unemployment benefits schemes are run by the unions and Ms Lundby-Wedin said that if members saw benefits being reduced they would naturally call into question the rewards of being a member.

Ms Lundby-Wedin said that recent developments were significant because Sweden's trade unions had traditionally co-operated closely with industry and government during disputes, providing one of the cornerstones of the country's social and economic model.

The government's proposed changes mean that benefits for the unemployed will drop from a current 80 per cent of salary to 65 per cent after 12 months of unemployment, Landsorganisationen said.

According to the government, the cuts are necessary to motivate people to re-enter the labour market.

Anders Borg, the finance minister, has argued that the unions risk alienating their members if they persist in seeking to abolish the cuts.

However, Ms Lundby-Wedin said: "All the steps we take are for the members. No one else can tell us what to do. They phone us, they write letters, write e-mails, write to newspapers. They are really angry."

However, most private sector economists support the government's argument, saying that Sweden has a relatively immobile labour force at the same time as companies are reporting growing labour shortages.

Ms Lundby-Wedin argued, however, that the cuts would force people into taking jobs that pay less than the unions' lowest wage suggested under their collective agreement of Skr14,500 (€1,605, $2,141, £1.081).

The union leader said an ordinary worker gets a salary of Skr17,000 a month. If this worker is unemployed, he or she will receive about Skr11,000. "They will be forced to take a job," she said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006.

The context she said it in makes it clear that they will be "forced to take a job" they are not educated or trained for; being "forced" to take a job that they don't want simply because it is available because they cannot afford to wait for one in their field or one they want to come along (better position, a certain level of pay and so on...).

The "forced" she used in the Swedish language has a meaning of "being compelled by circumstances" rather than being literally forced; the government can of course not literally force anyone to work (professions vital to the functioning of society in time of martial law excluded, of course).

One can have an opinion about this of course, choosing different sides as to consider more generous or more stringent public policy, but what is conspicuously absent from your cut&pasted post is any writing of your own; i.e. what it is about it you have an opinion on and want to discuss. As it is now, it's just an article you posted.

$500 a week for not working? An insult! I'd turn to crime!

Your powers of observation astound me.

Your powers of observation astound me.

Well, it is against the rules of the forums to just post an article like this without any comment of your own, without any basis for discussion - it's considered spam. I was trying to make you remedy it, or see the thread sink away or perhaps be locked should a mod see it.

No sweat off my back in any case.

It is? Well, in this case perhaps it should be locked, since I was unaware of this when I posted it.

But if you want my opinion, there's nothing wrong with some people being 'forced' to do jobs they don't like due to economic circumstances.

I hail this as positive change.

It was made so after the grand deluge of such posts by certain formerly illustrious trolls; just copy&pasted articles, no other content. The fora aren't supposed to be news aggregators like that; that's what fark and digg and slashdot and the rest are for.

Yet again the trolls mess it up for the rest of us.

Yet again the trolls mess it up for the rest of us.

no I doubt threads will go anywhere without the OP's opinion in the OP(as this seems to be going)

But if you want my opinion, there's nothing wrong with some people being 'forced' to do jobs they don't like due to economic circumstances.

what about if its a single mother who can't afford a carer? (and so we delve into unemployment never to return to normal conversation)

But if you want my opinion, there's nothing wrong with some people being 'forced' to do jobs they don't like due to economic circumstances.

Why not?

I find it kind of weird that with ten times my number of posts, Allanea hasn't noticed what works in a thread-starter, and what doesn't.

Best of all seems to be a famous poster, on a subject where their opinion is known. A fresh link from a decent source, and an even fresher opinion, particularly if the poster is a bit carried away with this news and goes out on a limb somewhat.

Also effective is an entrenched opinion, claiming the fresh link to support their position when it doesn't, or does so only marginally. Even known trolls can get a hundred posts or so that way, but rarely do so on purpose.

Controversial posters (not quite trolls) can get away with a subject with no fresh link. Helps if it's in the news that week.

A link which itself debates a point, followed by "let's debate this, everybody" can work, but as above, only if lots of folks know the OP is going to stick with it, and roughly which side they'll take. It might die after twenty posts even so.

Then there's funny posts, and chat posts in General. We all love them, right?

But posting a link to a controversial story, without any commitment by the OP to take a side is "let's you and him fight." It's Troll 101, even if you didn't mean it that way.

Oh, and a clickable link to your source pleases the punters too. It's the little blue globe with the two links, in the middle above the message input field.

You like them eggs, grandma? :cool:

what about if its a single mother who can't afford a carer? (and so we delve into unemployment never to return to normal conversation)

Mmm, you know, I grew in a family where both parents worked.

More interestingly, yes, there are special cases where the person cannot work for (reason). This doesn't mean there's some form of magical right to not work.

LEt me demonstrate:

Where I live, they are now making a law (about to pass or maybe already passed) that states that healthy people aged up to 26 are not entitled to unemployment money unless they have a special circumstance of some form (like children or some such).

And this is IMHO proper because it allowed care for the people who can't fend for themselves while not allowing people to receive welfare simply because they don't want to work.

And this is IMHO proper because it allowed care for the people who can't fend for themselves while not allowing people to receive welfare simply because they don't want to work.

so people should starve to death, get paid to be baby machines, or maybe just make a situation where all employers pay minimum wage because they know there workers wont dare quit?

I for one think we should keep giving welfare even at the rate its at now if you don’t work you will be poorer than poor, yes you may get the odd person who won’t work but the vast majority do and so there leeching wont do much damage (and it really is a tiny amount unlike the media would have you believe)

Oh... I thought this was going to be some Keynesian idea of linking the dole with pointless repetitive labour. Well, not entirely pointless, you're supposed to be slightly productive and the government can help fund the scheme by selling the meager fruits of your labour. All this is supposed to encourage you to go out there and find a real job.

I think there's a similar scheme to what Swedens proposing in the UK. If you reject x amount of a job offers whilst on the dole then you can be compelled to take the next job offer you get or they halt payments. And if you can't find work within 18 months then they send you on some sort of training scheme. I have no idea how well it works, it at all.

They also have income-based and contribution based job seekers allowance. With contribution-based your are entitled to unemployment benefit - whatever your situation - if you have made enough national insurance contributions. Whereas income-based the onus is on you to prove that you are in such a financial situation that you need the money. Income based is more restrictive and you get hassled more about finding jobs. Supposedly. I don't think the people who work at the Dole really care. Most of them seem to really dislike or hate their job and so don't really care about government targets and such.

I guess I agree with the Swedish government's move, just so long as it examines why people haven't been able to find employment during the last 12 months. Is it due to economic performance of the country, a lack of skills or unwillingness to find gainful employment.

The context she said it in makes it clear that they will be "forced to take a job" they are not educated or trained for; being "forced" to take a job that they don't want simply because it is available because they cannot afford to wait for one in their field or one they want to come along (better position, a certain level of pay and so on...).

The "forced" she used in the Swedish language has a meaning of "being compelled by circumstances" rather than being literally forced; the government can of course not literally force anyone to work (professions vital to the functioning of society in time of martial law excluded, of course).

One can have an opinion about this of course, choosing different sides as to consider more generous or more stringent public policy, but what is conspicuously absent from your cut&pasted post is any writing of your own; i.e. what it is about it you have an opinion on and want to discuss. As it is now, it's just an article you posted.

Technically, if you can't "force" someone to work, you certainly cannot "compel them by circumstances".

Technically, if you can't "force" someone to work, you certainly cannot "compel them by circumstances".

Compelled by the circumstances themselves. Swedish is a tricky language.

Most of use are compelled to work in order to have the basic necessities -- like eating and having a place to live.

I find it amusing that a union is upset that people who are not working -- and yet part of their union -- will be compelled to do what most adults do -- earn a living! (Obviously, disabilities and circumstance should be considered in this -- but these are not even mentioned in the OP.)

How horrible! to make people actually earn a living! Quel damage!

Most of use are compelled to work in order to have the basic necessities -- like eating and having a place to live.

I find it amusing that a union is upset that people who are not working -- and yet part of their union -- will be compelled to do what most adults do -- earn a living! (Obviously, disabilities and circumstance should be considered in this -- but these are not even mentioned in the OP.)

How horrible! to make people actually earn a living! Quel damage!

The objection is not that they shouldn't have to work. Were that the intention, the request would be to raise the unemployment benefits to 100% of the salary. The objection is that reducing the benefits to 65% would place undue pressure upon workers to find jobs quickly, potentially low-paying jobs for which they are not suited, thus weakening the position of the unions and of workers in general.

Most of use are compelled to work in order to have the basic necessities -- like eating and having a place to live.

I find it amusing that a union is upset that people who are not working -- and yet part of their union -- will be compelled to do what most adults do -- earn a living! (Obviously, disabilities and circumstance should be considered in this -- but these are not even mentioned in the OP.)

How horrible! to make people actually earn a living! Quel damage!

1. It's spelt "dommage" and it's "une dommage," thus "quelle dommage."

2. The unions are fighting this because the goverment's anti-union agenda is clear; the new rules raise the fee of the A-kassa from around 100 kr/month for most to over 300 kr/month. It's no mere coincidence that union fees and current A-kassa fees amount to a similar figure; this will push more people to leave the unions and only be members of the A-kassa, which will erode the influence of LO which has strong ties to the Social Democratic opposition (which currently has been boosted to a 45% support in polls due to popular resentment of the neo-liberal government's obvious anti-union agenda; unions are popular here - most are members of one). Not to mention that they drastically lower the recompense one can get from the A-kassa, so people end up paying more for less. The government's argument is that lowered taxes will compensate people for that, while the unions (and many others) argue that they will only compensate those who already have work, meaning that those unemployed already financially vulnerable will be made even more so. It's a classical neo-liberal "tax cuts for the haves, the whip to the have-nots" tactic, something that is a no-brainer for a Social Democratic union (and decent people) to oppose.

But if you want my opinion, there's nothing wrong with some people being 'forced' to do jobs they don't like due to economic circumstances.

I hail this as positive change.
How is it positive change to be forced into a menial, degrading job that's far below your qualifications, experience and/or abilities?

I've had that happen to me. Several years ago I was unemployed and looking for work. I had applied for dozens of jobs but had had no success. It was bringing me down severly.
The employment office called me up and had me in for an interview. During the course of the interview they offered me a job mowing lawns, for $100 more than I was getting on the dole.
Offered as in "take this or we will cut off your benefit because non-acceptance proves you aren't looking for work"
This was the best they could offer a person who had (at the time) two degrees and was working his way extra-murally through a post-grad diploma.

Do you honestly think, depressed as I already was at that time, that mowing lawns would be a positive change?
To accept that after all those years of university and post-grad studies, the best I could manage, in the Employment service's opinion, was a menial labouring job paying slightly above min wage?
Really think that would have made me feel better about myself?


(Fortunately (incredible throw of the fate dice here), the next day I was offered a 6 month contract updating the computer database for a forestry company (I had applied for it a couple of weeks earlier). Paying a lot more than the lawn mowing job too, I might add.)




Considering most people don't actually like being unemployed, being forced into an unsuitable job is just going to depress them even further. And like a Scandavian country hasn't enough problems already with depressed people!

And like a Scandavian country hasn't enough problems already with depressed people!

What gives you the idea that Scandinavian countries have a "problem" with depression?

What gives you the idea that Scandinavian countries have a "problem" with depression?

It's probably the annual slow trickle of stories that circulate, describing 'seasonal depressional syndrome', or whatever it's called, as being a major problem in Scandinavian countries. Of course, you're a medical doctor in a Scandinavian country - is this just another overblown cultural myth, Fass?

Or does the average Swede actually keep a personal UV chamber in their apartment to shake off the urge to hurt themselves over the winter months?

It's probably the annual slow trickle of stories that circulate, describing 'seasonal depressional syndrome', or whatever it's called, as being a major problem in Scandinavian countries. Of course, you're a medical doctor in a Scandinavian country - is this just another overblown cultural myth, Fass?

While there is a grain of truth in it, i.e. that people do seek help for it and there are "light chambres" people can go to if they feel like it, the phenomenon seems vastly exaggerated abroad.

Or does the average Swede actually keep a personal UV chamber in their apartment to shake off the urge to hurt themselves over the winter months?

http://www.faktoider.nu/img/time19760607.jpg

Of course not. The crux of the matter is that there seems to be some sort of legend, especially in the US, that Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are supposed to have high suicide rates, when in fact they do not. Swedish suicide rates are actually quite average. The misconception started sometime in the 50s and 60s when Sweden was the first country to properly report the statistics. It appeared to have more suicides because it was better than the others at counting them. Once the other countries caught up with their methodologies, this "over-representation" of Sweden disappeared, but certain right-wing elements in the US quickly seized upon the statistics and turned them into the untrue meme of elevated suicide rates, as you can see by that Time cover.

Of course not. The crux of the matter is that there seems to be some sort of legend, especially in the US, that Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are supposed to have high suicide rates, when in fact they do not. Swedish suicide rates are actually quite average. The misconception started sometime in the 50s and 60s when Sweden was the first country to properly report the statistics. It appeared to have more suicides because it was better than the others at counting them. Once the other countries caught up with their methodologies, this "over-representation" of Sweden disappeared.

Indeed. Scotland is the country with both the highest rate of depression and suicide in the EU. You can understand that, though, if you had to live in Scotland...

1. It's spelt "dommage" and it's "une dommage," thus "quelle dommage."


Nope... "quel dommage" un dommage, nom masculin.


Anyway my daddy that lazy worker, all his life never liked his job.
And the mother said every day our god invented that the heavy job she was doing was killing her. It did. She was working in a cigarettes factory and died of cancer. No she never smoke, why?

In Jesuites we all have to work.
20 hours for the state. No salary but free aspirin, free police, free transport, free sex, free TV, free housing, free taxes.

To buy a better TV or rent a better house you have to make a living. some jobs are offered by the state compagnies of Jesuites.
Largely paid, free suits, shoes, soap etc...

We force no one to labour. You just have an occupation.

Indeed. Scotland is the country with both the highest rate of depression and suicide in the EU. You can understand that, though, if you had to live in Scotland...

Scotland is a bit romanticised here, with the hills and lochs and whatnots. I guess the novelty wears off...

How is it positive change to be forced into a menial, degrading job that's far below your qualifications, experience and/or abilities?

I've had that happen to me. Several years ago I was unemployed and looking for work. I had applied for dozens of jobs but had had no success. It was bringing me down severly.
The employment office called me up and had me in for an interview. During the course of the interview they offered me a job mowing lawns, for $100 more than I was getting on the dole.
Offered as in "take this or we will cut off your benefit because non-acceptance proves you aren't looking for work"
This was the best they could offer a person who had (at the time) two degrees and was working his way extra-murally through a post-grad diploma.

Do you honestly think, depressed as I already was at that time, that mowing lawns would be a positive change?
To accept that after all those years of university and post-grad studies, the best I could manage, in the Employment service's opinion, was a menial labouring job paying slightly above min wage?
Really think that would have made me feel better about myself?


(Fortunately (incredible throw of the fate dice here), the next day I was offered a 6 month contract updating the computer database for a forestry company (I had applied for it a couple of weeks earlier). Paying a lot more than the lawn mowing job too, I might add.)




Considering most people don't actually like being unemployed, being forced into an unsuitable job is just going to depress them even further. And like a Scandavian country hasn't enough problems already with depressed people!

Pfft. In high school, I worked as a gofer at H&R Block and a papergirl. In college, I worked to help register people for classes. Straight out of college, I worked at Macy's as a cashier. Then I worked as an editorial assistant, then a desktop publisher, and finally as a teacher.

Wow, I mean, all of those were top-notch jobs. I don't know how I didn't kill myself. :rolleyes:

Nope... "quel dommage" un dommage, nom masculin.

Vous avez raison, j'ai eu tort. Je ne sais pourquoi, mais j'ai pensé à "la plage, la cage, la page, la nage, l'image" etc, mais ce sont des exceptions à la règle... Normalement les noms en "-age" sont masculins, c'est vrai.

Disons que je suis dingue aujourd'hui (pas que, mais...).

Scotland is a bit romanticised here, with the hills and lochs and whatnots. I guess the novelty wears off...

:D

Thank you for this slice of hilarity.

:D

Thank you for this slice of hilarity.

Actually, I looked it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate) - Scotland isn't the highest country with suicides in the EU. Lithuania is, and it's actually the country with the highest rate in the world.

In Lithuania's case, I can understand.

Actually, I looked it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate) - Scotland isn't the highest country with suicides in the EU. Lithuania is, and it's actually the country with the highest rate in the world.

In Lithuania's case, I can understand.

Ah, but the UK is included as one country there and I believe a BMJ article claimed that Scotland's suicide rate is twice that of England & Wales.

Ah, but the UK is included as one country there and I believe a BMJ article claimed that Scotland's suicide rate is twice that of England & Wales.

Even if it were, it wouldn't come close to that of Lithuania.

How is it positive change to be forced into a menial, degrading job that's far below your qualifications, experience and/or abilities?

I've had that happen to me. Several years ago I was unemployed and looking for work. I had applied for dozens of jobs but had had no success. It was bringing me down severly.
The employment office called me up and had me in for an interview. During the course of the interview they offered me a job mowing lawns, for $100 more than I was getting on the dole.
Offered as in "take this or we will cut off your benefit because non-acceptance proves you aren't looking for work"
This was the best they could offer a person who had (at the time) two degrees and was working his way extra-murally through a post-grad diploma.

Do you honestly think, depressed as I already was at that time, that mowing lawns would be a positive change?
To accept that after all those years of university and post-grad studies, the best I could manage, in the Employment service's opinion, was a menial labouring job paying slightly above min wage?
Really think that would have made me feel better about myself?


(Fortunately (incredible throw of the fate dice here), the next day I was offered a 6 month contract updating the computer database for a forestry company (I had applied for it a couple of weeks earlier). Paying a lot more than the lawn mowing job too, I might add.)




Considering most people don't actually like being unemployed, being forced into an unsuitable job is just going to depress them even further. And like a Scandavian country hasn't enough problems already with depressed people!

That's called life. You should never expect the government to bail you through life, such systems always collapse after a sustained period of time. Learning how to survive to finish your degree and to suffer some humiliation only builds your character and teaches you the vital points of life, nothing is ever given to you as a present you have to earn it.

Even if it were, it wouldn't come close to that of Lithuania.

Yeah I've just checked and the article was written before Lithuania became an EU member-state.

How is it positive change to be forced into a menial, degrading job that's far below your qualifications, experience and/or abilities?


It's a job. You earn money. I find this much less degrading then the dole.

And yes, I know something about such jobs. I've swept streets (at half the minimum wage), worked in a soap factory, worked as a night guard... see the point?

It's a job. You earn money. I find this much less degrading then the dole.

And yes, I know something about such jobs. I've swept streets (at half the minimum wage), worked in a soap factory, worked as a night guard... see the point?

So, I worked my arse off at uni for 5 years to become a teacher. Because my government has a stupid and fucked up hiring system, and attitude towards teachers, I am expected to go out and become a cleaner, or streetsweeper or something? Just because that is the available job? I don't think so. I worked hard at uni specifically so I wouldn't have to do that shit. If I wanted to do a low-paying menial job, I would have taken any of the several that were offered me straight out of high school.

So, I worked my arse off at uni for 5 years to become a teacher. Because my government has a stupid and fucked up hiring system, and attitude towards teachers, I am expected to go out and become a cleaner, or streetsweeper or something? Just because that is the available job? I don't think so. I worked hard at uni specifically so I wouldn't have to do that shit. If I wanted to do a low-paying menial job, I would have taken any of the several that were offered me straight out of high school.

I think that teachers will usually be able to find available jobs. There are many people, however, that take "trendy" university educations in fields where there really are no job opportunities. Should people that train themselves in "useless" areas get a free pass to sit at home and do nothing?

The ideal scenario would be for everyone to get a job in the field they are trained in. This is, however, not an ideal world, so people have to take jobs that are available.