Can we sacrifice the freedom of association for the sake of productivity? The case of the Göteborg harbor in Sweden and the upcoming changes in the Swedish legislation.
Fusco, Federico LU
(2019)
XVII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEIN COMMEMORATION OF PROF MARCO BIAGI
- Abstract
- Sweden is a country that traditionally respects the freedom of association and the large number of existing trade unions confirms this statement.
On the other hand, however, the Swedish trade union system is structured in a way that eliminates almost every sort of competition between different organizations. In fact, for every sector of the economy there is approximately one union for blue collars and one for white collars, each of which signs its own collective agreement.
For this reason the trade union pluralism is due to the large number of existing sectors, but the system is not prepared to deal with the existence of two different trade unions, with opposite ideologies, organizing the same type of workers in the same... (More) - Sweden is a country that traditionally respects the freedom of association and the large number of existing trade unions confirms this statement.
On the other hand, however, the Swedish trade union system is structured in a way that eliminates almost every sort of competition between different organizations. In fact, for every sector of the economy there is approximately one union for blue collars and one for white collars, each of which signs its own collective agreement.
For this reason the trade union pluralism is due to the large number of existing sectors, but the system is not prepared to deal with the existence of two different trade unions, with opposite ideologies, organizing the same type of workers in the same sector.
This is exactly the situation that has developed in the Göteborg harbor, where Transport, the major national union of transportation workers, represents only few employee, while the majority (85%) is unionized in SHF, a spin-off of Transport born because of different ideologies.
Since 2016 the company running the harbor (APM Terminals) is excluding SHF from every kind of industrial relation, thus causing an ongoing conflict which is seriously affecting the harbor activity, that in 2017 scored a -19% in the containers trade.
The situation arose as national debate because the Göteborg terminal is the biggest of the country and it handles the 60% of the Swedish export industry (the major pillar of the domestic economy). Its reduced productivity is, then, causing important economic losses also to subjects extraneous to the dispute.
For this reason the legislator stepped into the conflict, declaring the willingness to extend the peace obligation linked to the conclusion of a collective agreement also to the trade unions who had not signed it. At the present moment there are different actions that have been suggested, but they all share the common thread of safeguard the trade union that normally bargains with the employer. However, missing any rule linking the trade unions’ representativeness with the right to bargain and moving from a situation in which there is basically only one union per sector which normally bargains, the practical result is to almost eliminate every kind of dissent among different trade unions. An organization different from the historical ones, in fact, would not be able to strike in order to support its collective agreement, thus transforming the collective bargain in collective begging. This rule would be applied even is spite of the trade union’s greater representativeness and it has been specifically design to prevent SHF (which in Göteborg represents the 85% of the workers) to continue its collective action.
Moving from those remarks this paper aims to study the ongoing changes in the Swedish law, in order to provide an analysis useful also as an international benchmark. In fact, the described limitations of the trade union’s activity, even in spite of a strong representativeness, seems to clash with the fundamental freedom of association, thus raising the Swedish case as an important reference point for the whole subject.
(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/85f0fa31-8169-482f-a2a0-083ba3c3f1cb
- author
- Fusco, Federico
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2019-03-18
- type
- Contribution to conference
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- freedom of association, right to strike, industrial conflict, Göteborg harbor, sweden, Transport, Ylva Johansson, SOU 2018:40
- conference name
- XVII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE<br/>IN COMMEMORATION OF PROF MARCO BIAGI
- conference location
- Modena, Italy
- conference dates
- 2019-03-18 - 2019-03-20
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 85f0fa31-8169-482f-a2a0-083ba3c3f1cb
- date added to LUP
- 2018-08-30 14:50:40
- date last changed
- 2019-06-11 02:15:48
@misc{85f0fa31-8169-482f-a2a0-083ba3c3f1cb,
abstract = {{Sweden is a country that traditionally respects the freedom of association and the large number of existing trade unions confirms this statement.<br/>On the other hand, however, the Swedish trade union system is structured in a way that eliminates almost every sort of competition between different organizations. In fact, for every sector of the economy there is approximately one union for blue collars and one for white collars, each of which signs its own collective agreement.<br/>For this reason the trade union pluralism is due to the large number of existing sectors, but the system is not prepared to deal with the existence of two different trade unions, with opposite ideologies, organizing the same type of workers in the same sector.<br/>This is exactly the situation that has developed in the Göteborg harbor, where Transport, the major national union of transportation workers, represents only few employee, while the majority (85%) is unionized in SHF, a spin-off of Transport born because of different ideologies.<br/>Since 2016 the company running the harbor (APM Terminals) is excluding SHF from every kind of industrial relation, thus causing an ongoing conflict which is seriously affecting the harbor activity, that in 2017 scored a -19% in the containers trade.<br/>The situation arose as national debate because the Göteborg terminal is the biggest of the country and it handles the 60% of the Swedish export industry (the major pillar of the domestic economy). Its reduced productivity is, then, causing important economic losses also to subjects extraneous to the dispute.<br/>For this reason the legislator stepped into the conflict, declaring the willingness to extend the peace obligation linked to the conclusion of a collective agreement also to the trade unions who had not signed it. At the present moment there are different actions that have been suggested, but they all share the common thread of safeguard the trade union that normally bargains with the employer. However, missing any rule linking the trade unions’ representativeness with the right to bargain and moving from a situation in which there is basically only one union per sector which normally bargains, the practical result is to almost eliminate every kind of dissent among different trade unions. An organization different from the historical ones, in fact, would not be able to strike in order to support its collective agreement, thus transforming the collective bargain in collective begging. This rule would be applied even is spite of the trade union’s greater representativeness and it has been specifically design to prevent SHF (which in Göteborg represents the 85% of the workers) to continue its collective action.<br/>Moving from those remarks this paper aims to study the ongoing changes in the Swedish law, in order to provide an analysis useful also as an international benchmark. In fact, the described limitations of the trade union’s activity, even in spite of a strong representativeness, seems to clash with the fundamental freedom of association, thus raising the Swedish case as an important reference point for the whole subject.<br/>}},
author = {{Fusco, Federico}},
keywords = {{freedom of association; right to strike; industrial conflict; Göteborg harbor; sweden; Transport; Ylva Johansson; SOU 2018:40}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{03}},
title = {{Can we sacrifice the freedom of association for the sake of productivity? The case of the Göteborg harbor in Sweden and the upcoming changes in the Swedish legislation.}},
year = {{2019}},
}