c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 209 427 MAK1910:272. 428 MAK1910:270. See also MAK1910:271 (Carl Jansson from Edsbäcken). 429 AK1910:59, pp. 21-23. 430 AK1910:58, pp. 47-49. The signers of the resolution also pointed out that there was a connection between the workers duty of obedience and their job security. Protected by the “section23 prerogatives”, employers could namely fire employees with reference to all kinds of reasons without the workers having any kind of influence at all. The practice that the employers had applied up until now more than sufficiently showed the great meaning that could be attributed to the employer’s right to direct and distribute work.427 Assar Åkerman, as well, who at this time was a “left-wing maverick” and not yet a Social Democrat, held that the employer’s right to direct and distribute work in accordance with the proposed act undoubtedly reproduced the actual conditions and therefore at first could appear to be innocuous. In reality, however, a legal enactment of the employer’s absolutist power would obstruct the collective agreements.428 Herman Lindqvist, as well, admitted that the employer’s right to direct and distribute work could appear to be extraordinarily natural keeping in mind that the employer was the one who invested capital. However, that right only applied to the business’ technical direction and distribution. Lindqvist pointed out that when this right had been used, it had meant something more, since every proposal by the workers to be assured some kind of co-determination had been rejected by the employers with reference to the concept of “directing and distributing work”. Therefore, the question should remain a question for negotiations without being restricted by legislation.429 The “normative” regulations that Prime Minister Arvid Lindman had referred to, among others the employer’s right in accordance with section23, were intended to support and protect the employer’s interests.430
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=