recommended the strategy of beginning now with a voluntary arbitration board, for which the parties in time would gain confidence, and then establish a labour court as had been done in Denmark. He also noted that the proposed court had a strong feature of laymen.510 The same line was adopted by the leading “social liberal” G H von Koch511, who, among other things, had participated in the creation of the Swedish CooperativeWholesale Society (Sw. Kooperativa Förbundet, KF) and in the 1913 act on alcoholism and the 1918 act concerning poor relief. Like Undén, von Koch argued emphatically that the current legislation was not going to constitute a terminal point. In addition, mandatory arbitration should be implemented in legal disputes taking into account the fact that the interests of the organisations should not be allowed to dominate over greater, societal interests, namely, to guarantee a calm development for the country, industrial peace and increased production.512 von Koch’s position, which differed from that which the Liberals in general had assumed when confronted with the proposed bills ten years earlier, can be seen in the light of that Sweden now was on its way to implementing political democracy in the form of parliamentary government and general suffrage. The introduction of the Central Arbitration Board in1920meant that the state provided the corporativist bodies on the labour market a place for the voluntary settlement of disputes regarding collective agreements. The statements by Undén and von Koch in parliament implied, however, that here and there within the old left-wing alliance, including the Social Democrats, it was p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 252 510 FK1920:41, pp. 72-75. See also Undén 1919. Göransson 1988, pp. 209, 212. 511 Wirén 1980. 512 FK1920:69, pp. 66-69. 9. 5 maste r and se rvant, industrial democracy or an extended obl igat ion for industrial peace? 1921-26
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=