c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 221 were class laws that were intended to protect the interests of the employers. In the labour relationship, the working party was at a disadvantage. In addition, the worker’s contribution to the relationship was of a more personal nature in which he put in a part of his life.The higher goal must be instead to secure the economic, social and cultural position of the working class and to approach a healthier social order that reduced class antagonism.454 Leaving the issue of plant regulations entirely unregulated left the field open for the employer to unilaterally make decisions regarding this type of conflict of interest. Social Democrats Lindqvist and Persson from Malmö argued that by doing so, the worker was subjected to unbearable pressure in the choice between remaining under what might be brutal plant regulations or leaving the workplace and risk being held liable to the damages that the act stipulated for breach of contract.The regulation concerning the right of the employer to direct and distribute work not only gave the employer the right - “which is natural” - to technically direct work and operations, but also, whenever he liked, to shut out all the workers that lived in the vicinity.455 There were several examples of nuances in the Social Democratic criticism. In an extensive resolution signed by, among others, Herman Lindqvist and Hjalmar Branting, it was argued that even if the workers opposed the repetition of the proposal of the rules of the Swedish Employers’ Confederation and the section 23prerogatives of the December compromise, one shouldn’t think that they wanted to transfer technical direction of the company from the employer to the workers or the union.What they questioned was not the actual right of the employer to direct and distribute work, but his abuse of these rights that led to arbitrariness, pettiness and unfair persecution.Therefore, it was reasonable to stipulate certain restrictions to what in principle was the employer’s incontestable right. For example, preference could be 454 MFK1910:92. SU1:1 1911, pp. 118-119. FK1911:24, pp. 21-22 (Löfgren). 455 SU1:1 1911, pp. 5, 7-8, 41, 43, 119-122, 141-143.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=