George Hopkins Feb 12, 2014:

Attractive names and slogans A few examples of political headings:
Allmännyttan: Is it not the opposite?
Löntagarfonder: Have never been owned by wage-earners.
Rätten till arbete: If I have the right to a job where is the person who has the corresponding obligation to give me a job?
Ökad jämlikhet: How can one increase equality?
Medbestämmandelagen: There is no “medbestämmande”, only discussion and negotiations. Then the employer makes a decision.
Värnskatt: Defence against what?
Folkhemmet: Similar to expressions such as the “American way of life”, “Not British” or even more indefinable “Not cricket”. All of them are diffuse and can mean all or nothing. I heard on the radio not long ago someone say “Folkhemmet och den så-kallade marknaden”
Can you imagine any Swede saying så-kallade Folkhemmet? (Folkhemmet, enl. Bra Böckers Lexikon: ett politiskt slagord som vid sekelskiftet myntades av högerpolitiken Rudolf Kjellén men blev bevingat genom Per Albin Hansson, som först använde det i remissdebatten 1928.)
Trygghetslagarna: On first sight they appear commendable. In the long run they are simply an attempt to maintain a status quo. One of the rules “First in, first out” is crude. It serves no real purpose, etc.

Anna Herbst Feb 12, 2014:

Hear, hear, Deane! And to George, unfortunately there will always be employers who will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to co-determination negotiations. They have earned their power, and it is their responsibility to run the business, so why should they have to listen to what their employees have to say? They should be grateful that someone else has taken on the difficult task of making decisions for them, or...?
Having lived away from Sweden for a long time, I am not sure whether these employers are in the majority or few and far between. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I should hope the latter is still closer to the truth.

Deane Goltermann Feb 12, 2014:

Now we're approaching a discussion forum! as we've left the Richard's term request and are working on pinpointing (splitting hairs?) the meaning of 'co-determination'. Oxford says it is "cooperation between management and workers in decision-making, especially by the representation of workers on boards of directors." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_englis... I read 'cooperation' as indicating a legal relationship between union and employer that is not 'co-responsible'. I therefore think your argument re 'the employer is responsible for all decisions' a) states the actual legal relationship specified in, and the actual application of the law and, b) fits well within this meaning of the term 'co-determination'. That the union reps you met had other ideas ... well that's almost expected. Either they were consciously trying for a personal power grab, or more likely, over-impressed with themselves but not fully informed/trained for their union activities.

As to the Swe 'medbestämmande' -- I'll leave those hairs to be split buy native speaking lawyers.

George Hopkins Feb 12, 2014:

@ Deane My mood has nothing to do with my opinion, which is based on direct experience. I have participated in several MBL negotiations and it has sometimes been necessary to make clear to union negotiators that in the end it is the employer who makes a decision. It is never co-determination simply because it is only the employer who holds formal responsibility for any decisions made.
Negotiations give the employer an excellent opportunity to listen to various points of view and it would be a poor employer who does not act on sensible contributions, ie, applied common sense.

Deane Goltermann Feb 12, 2014:

@ George I see you seem to be in a contrarian mood, but the term 'co-determination' is used regularly in Europe and international contexts by the ILO and OECD. The Swe law was essentially written by the LO. If you want to change their usage, be my guest.

I personally experienced implementation of the law (in Swe only); union reps and employer discussed/negotiated/shot the bull and came up with an agreed course of action (redundancies/layoffs - especially who and in what order). This was communicated by both parties to all employees and subsequently implemented accordingly. I got to know my place on the list, and the consequences. This was carried out pretty much as stated. I was laid off; rehired part-time; rehired full-time within a month; and didn't lose seniority or pay scale. The employer responded to Union requests/demands, refraining from deciding alone.

Here, you insist this is ultimately the employer's responsibility, which of course, is in the act (as the LO didn't insist on socialism). To therefore insist the term 'co-determination' is somehow inappropriate is a rather untenable linguistic argument -- in relation to actual international usage and practical impact.

George Hopkins Feb 12, 2014:

Anna Anna’s comments are correct in that the official wording does give the impression that ”co-determination” is something that takes place. The reality is that discussions, not co-determination, take place and then, sooner or later, the employer determines what is to be done.
The result is that the union is obliged to stick to the final decision, ie, discussions have been concluded and the employer makes the decision.

Anna Herbst Feb 12, 2014:

@George Hopkins The official translation of Lag (1976:580) om medbestämmande i arbetslivet, generally referred to as Medbestämmandelagen or MBL, is Employment (Co-Determination in the Workplace) Act. http://www.government.se/sb/d/5807/a/174131
The Act can be read at http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfat...
or downloaded for an English translation at the previous web address. Negotiations are dealt with in sections 10 - 17 with sections 10 and 11 stating the rights and obligations as follows: "Section 10: An employees' organisation shall have the right to negotiate with an employer on any matter relating to the relationship between the employer and any member of the organisation who is, or has been, employed by that employer. An employer shall have an equivalent right to negotiate with an employees’ organisation. /---/" Section 11: "Before an employer takes any decision regarding significant changes in its activities, he shall, on its own initiative, enter into negotiations with the employees' organisation with which he is bound to negotiate under a collective bargaining agreement. /---/"

George Hopkins Feb 11, 2014:

MBL MBL, like many other political headings, is somewhat misleading.
MBL gives Swedish union representatives at company level, if properly organized, the right to discuss important changes proposed by the employer, eg, investment in equipment. The employer is obliged to arrange such discussions. If agreement is reached the company can go ahead. If not the union has the right within a certain time limit to request negotiations at a higher level. This would mean negotiations between representatives of an employers’ association and a central union. Negotiations may or may not result in agreement. However, it is always the employer who makes the final decision following the necessary negotiations.

Re Deane's comment:
Medbestämmande does mean co-determination; but that is something that does not happen in the workplace.
Swedish law stipulates that negotiation must take place prior to serious decisions.
The employer is responsible for all decisions.
Union representatives are not responsible for the resulting decisions.
It is not a matter of co-determination, it is a matter of discussing proposed changes which is no more than applied common sense.

Deane Goltermann Feb 11, 2014:

Cheers! Try that one next time you want to raise your prices!