had been cut out taking into account that employers and employees did not face each other autonomously. Moreover, the service contract in a much different way than of the contract of piecework had been in the key sign of the social legislation. One ought also be aware of the risk that the employer entered into an agreement on piecework with his servants in order to avoid the mandatory protective rules of the master-servant legislation. Despite these historical and social-political reasons, it was not possible to concur with the prevailing subordination theory. Among other things,Wikander referred to the fact that even in the case of piecework, the independence of the person under obligation to work could be limited. But above all, he asserted that the other authors’ references to reality were not based on studies of reality.They had not noted that a great variety of contracts that came under the service contract meant that the person doing the work directed the work him- or herself. Keeping in mind doctors, artists, etc., it was in all essential respects a fiction to talk about the employer’s right to direct work in these cases. This had also been the starting point for the proposed bill of 1910.With reference to Lotmar495, Wikander argued that it could not be considered as distinctive for the service contract that, as opposed to the contract of piecework, the employee was to stand in a personal subordination relationship or in a relationship mainly in the interest of the employer.496 He thus departed clearly from Undén’s idea that the employment relationship primarily meant an authoritarian obedience relationship.Wikander’s reputation was not at all as high in legal science circles as, for example, Undén’s.And perhaps it is symptomatic that he lost getting a professorship in private law at Uppsala University in competition with Undén.497 p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 244 495 See above about Germany and Lotmar 1908, pp. 858-859. 496 Wikander 1913, pp. 256-261. 497 Undén 1917.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=