The Greatest Failure of the Swedish Model

As I write this, Swedish labor unions are negotiating with representatives from employers' unions. The issue on the table: the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs for short) that will determine the baseline working conditions for nearly every worker in Sweden. Even those few workers who are not directly covered by a CBA—about 10% of the total workforce, according to Swedish Enterprise—will be affected, as even those companies that haven't signed a CBA tend to adjust salaries in accordance with what the unions and employers have agreed upon.

Model Workers

These negotiations are perhaps the ultimate manifestation of what is referred to as the "Swedish Model", in which salaries and working conditions are primarily agreed upon through negotiations between employers and employees, represented by employers' associations and labor unions respectively. I'm probably oversimplifying, but the reasoning behind this model is that minimizing government intervention affords more influence to the parties that are more directly involved in the work; in turn, the result of these negotiations should be more in accordance with the circumstances of each industry and workplace.

I actually think the Swedish Model is great, at least in theory; I'm a fan of anything that moves influence closer to the workers. Unfortunately, the power balance on the Swedish labor market remains firmly tipped toward the employer; from the legislation that says Swedish union clubs can elect representatives to the board of directors of their workplace—but only as long as those representatives make up a minority of the board—to that which limits the right to strike to only apply when the employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. This last restriction adds a lot of importance to the ongoing negotiations, as it is only during these that Swedish workers have access to their greatest weapon; to deny their employers their labor by striking.

These negotiations will set the bar for working conditions for all Swedish workers for the next several years. We look to our unions to fight for us, to get us the best possible outcome. We expect this of them, because that's how the model works.

It'd be a shame, then, if the unions completely failed to meet our expectations.

Working Time Reduction: A Case Study

Apart from salaries, the unions are pushing hard for working time reductions for their members. This has been a hot topic in Sweden for some time now; several political parties have proposed some form of reduction, even our decidedly milquetoast social democratic party (although we'll get back to them). The unions know this is an important topic for their members—when we polled our members in the Avalanche union club in order to find out what benefits they'd most like to see in a CBA, the 4-day week was the second most popular. The only thing our members wanted more was the removal of the "karensavdrag", which would finally let workers take time off due to sickness without losing out on a full day's salary.

The idea of the 4-day week, following the "100/80/100" model (100% pay for 80% work while retaining 100% productivity), has garnered an incredible amount of interest in the past few years, with pilot studies performed all over the world (including an ongoing one in Sweden) that prove the benefits of significantly reducing working time across an entire company; if you're curious, I suggest you have a look at the 4 Day Week Global website, where you can read their findings. If you're particularly interested, I would recommend reading the research papers they've published after each study—reading them fills me with optimism, akin to reading utopian science fiction.

I could easily write an entire post about the 4-day week (and probably will at some point), but I'll stop here so I can get to the point.

So. Swedish politicians know their constituents want reduced working time. Swedish unions know their members want reduced working time. The 4-day week is all over the news, and is actively being called for within the labor movement.
Surely the politicians and unions would listen to their people, and not dilute their proposals for work time reduction down to something that barely qualifies?

Of course they would.

Remember how I said the Social Democrats—Sweden's largest political party—have drafted a proposal for working time reduction? At the time of writing, that proposal calls for reducing the Swedish workweek from 40 hours to 35... in 10 years. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Denmark already work 37,5 hours per week; in times like these I'm very happy to be working for a Danish company. By the time this proposal bears fruit—if it is even accepted, as it's been controversial even within the ranks of the Social Democrats—the Danes will most likely have reduced their working hours further, leaving Sweden behind once again.

The unions are doing "better", in that they're at least getting some results right now; several of the collective bargaining agreements that have been signed off on do include terms for working hour reductions. But those who were hoping for a 4-day week will be disappointed—instead of a reduction of one working day per week, the reduction that's been agreed upon amounts to one day per year.

That's... well, rounded up it's about 2% of a 4-day week, folks. You'll forgive me if I hold the applause.

If you ask Unionen, this a great step in the right direction. That's because their long-term goal is a reduction of 100 working hours per year, or about 1 day per month—somehow managing to aim for less than the Social Democrats with their 10-year plan for a 35-hour work week.

Watch The Spark Fade From Their Eyes

This discrepancy between what workers want and what unions deliver is perhaps the greatest failure of the Swedish Model. If I had still been a union representative at Avalanche, I'm not sure what I could tell the members whose enthusiasm was based on the promise that their union was listening to them—that they were fighting to represent the wishes of their members in negotiations with employers. The best I could offer is that by the time they're halfway to retirement, they might be working 7-hour days instead of the current 8.
I invite you to picture a fire being quenched by a blanket with the worlds "social democracy" embroidered upon it. That describes how I'm feeling, at any rate.

Despite how hard I'm being on the unions, I still think every worker in Sweden should be in one. Everything else aside, the opportunities for organization afforded to union members provides a solid foundation for further political mobilization.
But if you're a member of a union, understand that you cannot sit back and expect them to serve you dramatic improvements to your working conditions on a platter. If you want real change, you must get involved; at the local level, at the regional level, and at the national level. Talk to your fellow union members and your local union representatives, and file motions to the regional and national assembly—then hold them accountable if they fail to represent you. Remember that the power of a union lies in the collective power of its members, and leverage that power in any way you can to manifest your will.

I guess that's what I'd tell the members of my union club—instead of letting your disappointment quench the fire, turn it into yet more fuel. That's what I'm trying to do as I continue to look for ways in which I can effect change in my society.

God knows it'd be a lot easier if we all had an extra day off per week.