A number of general regulations of an “ethical” nature had also been eliminated from the proposal.These had been criticised for reflecting a personal and outdated view of the present relationship between employer and worker. In this case, as well, the minister of justice expressed another opinion and argued that these ethical obligations ought to be “considered” as ensuing from the labour agreement.452 Thus the minister here expressed a line of reasoning that certain conditions constitutednaturalia in the employment agreement. In parliament, the jurists Ivar Afzelius (1848-1921) and ErnstTrygger (1857-1943), among others, pled in support of the proposals that they certainly had their weaknesses, but that one should at least try through legislation to create a peaceful work environment in the country.The intention of the acts was to create industrial peace by prohibiting certain weapons, but to be sure not industrial conflicts themselves.At the same time, many members of parliament pointed to the need to revise the 1833 Statute on Hired Servants.453 Liberals such as Löfgren, Schotte,Wijk and Sandström as well as Assar Åkerman, on the other hand, criticised the proposal. The regulation of the workers’ duty of obedience was regarded as being unclear, and it was difficult to base legal consequences on such vague regulations as “existing custom”.The critics held that the comments submitted concerning the proposal clearly showed that such concepts were far from incontestable.Modern legislation on labour agreements required thorough preparatory work, but the government had not used all available sources of help in order to clarify what was right and wise,“natural”,“selfevident”,“fair” etc.The Social Democrats held the 1911 proposal to be as objectionable as the one from the year before since they p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 8 220 452 “…böra anses följa af arbetsaftalet…”. Prop. 1911:43, p. 94. 453 FK1911:24, pp. 24-32, 38, 40-44. 8. 3. 8 a thi rd re j ect ion by the le ft
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=