Lindqvist’s argument illustrated another controversial theme in the debate, namely, many Social Democrats’ opinion that jurists who participated in the work on the preparatory works to the bill in many respects shared the views of the employers. The same scepticism towards jurists was eloquently expressed in the discussion about the establishment of a labour court. In the resolution in the second chamber mentioned above, by, among others, Hjalmar Branting, Herman Lindqvist and Carl Lindhagen, it was argued that the composition of the labour court was not suited to creating the necessary confidence of impartiality on the part of the workers.The large ensemble of jurists had to “create fears that an overwhelming influence will be made way for legal hair-splitting with its - to put it mildly - uncomprehending view regarding the strivings of the workers, which according to the testimony of experience, in far too many cases characterises the spokesmen of higher legal education”.431 The trade union leader, Charles Lindley had the same view and argued that few trade unions in Sweden were prepared to give up their free right to strike and hand over decisions of vital questions to a court, the members of which would mainly consist of representatives who came from bourgeois social circles.432 Assar Åkerman, who himself was a professional judge, was more positive to the idea of a labour court. He proposed that the court would decide disputes in which the workers could not accept the employer’s proposal for plant regulations. Possibly, a social intervention could emerge from this regarding the regulation of working conditions for which there were already models available abroad. Åkerman, however, opposed more than one jurist getting a seat on the court and proposed that the remaining six representative should be chosen from among persons who had labour market experience. Moreover, the work procep a r t i v, c h a p t e r 8 210 8. 3. 4 di strust of juri sts 431 MAK1910:272, p. 37. 432 MAK1910:284.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=