c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 257 Even if the Master-Servant Statute disappeared, some of its central components remained within the framework of the collective self-regulation.The clearest reminiscence was without doubt the equivalent of the tied-cottage system (Sw. statarsystemet) in the agricultural sector, above all the construction that the worker’s performance was remunerated by a low monetary wage and the rest in the form of living quarters and maintenance.The Swedish tied-cottage system would not be abolished until 1945 by a collective agreement between the Swedish Agricultural Employers’Associations and the Swedish AgriculturalWorkers’ Union.524 All in all, the abolition of the Master-Servant Statute in 1926 was an important historical step, an abandonment of the centuries’ old, public law regulation of working life that had been characterised by penalty and police sanctions and conditions determined beforehand by state legislation.The relationship between employers and workers had definitely been placed in the field of private law.This meant that compliance would be primarily sanctioned by annulment and damages.This was reflected in an increasingly intensive legal-political discussion.There, it was questioned, more or less explicitly, whether other parts of the Master-Servant Statute should continue to exist as general principles for other labour contracts, particularly the worker’s farreaching duty of obedience and loyalty, as well as the employer’s obligation to take care of and protect the worker.At the same time, the resistance remained on the part of the Social Democrats and subsequently the Communists to legislation, the purpose of which was to regulate in advance the conditions in a labour contract.525 The Social Democrats’ position to labour law legislation, however, was contradictory, which was apparent from their proposal dealing with “industrial democracy”. 524 Back 1961; Utterström1957. 525 Adlercreutz,T1971, pp. 173-176.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=