RB 64

c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 205 and the creation of confidence in the legislation was held to be unnecessary”.The proposal in its entirety appeared to be a straight jacket on the working class, and in particular constituted, in its important rules or its given consequences, a taking of sides for the employers at the expense of the workers.The entire undercurrent of the proposed act ran in the direction that the workers were to be bound contractually in such a way that their solidarity and their only weapon - the strike - were wrenched from their hands.According to those behind the resolution, the proposed act on individual agreements contained several stipulations that seemed to belong more to the Statute on Hired Servants rather than a modern act concerning industrial workers.417 Herman Lindqvist, among others, further developed this criticism and held that the question required a more thorough investigation with the participation of experts and practically experienced persons, as well as an opportunity for employers, workers and public authorities to express an opinion about the proposal. The government’s reasons for the proposals that were presented were particularly deficient, and the investigation lacked almost any kind of firm position from which to assess the contents of such vague terms as “fair” and “reasonable” etc. Since the act was intended for the incomparably largest number of the country’s population, it was especially important that it was formulated clearly so that people would not unconsciously or against their will be held responsible for violations of the rules, whose contents even jurists seemed to find difficult to understand and assess.418 Other opponents held that important principle questions, among these, the employer’s right to direct and distribute work, were still the subject of conflict between the labour markets’ organisations, which had been ignored in the bill. Moreover, the minute regulation of mutual rights would probably lead to more 417 MAK1910:272. 418 SU2 1910:6, pp. 139-141.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=