c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 265 as a whole.534Löfgren now represented a completely different line than the one he advocated at the parliaments of 1910 and 1911, when he actively argued against labour law legislation and the establishment of a labour court. The change of course in question was commented on by Ekman. In answer to a question from the only Communist in the first chamber, publicist Carl Winberg, Ekman said that the Liberals and “the liberal-minded” (Sw. frisinnade) had changed their positions because society itself had changed and legislation now must be quickly introduced.535 For Hjalmar von Sydow, it was enough to stand in the same old position and once again emphasise that legislation was needed on mandatory arbitration if the workers were to fulfil their tasks. Actually, von Sydow stated, the investigation into this matter had begun 19 years earlier, namely, at the same time as he was appointed to the 1907 committee on labour contract questions. von Sydow regretted the resistance of the Social Democrats and noted the movement’s ambivalence in this matter.536 The Social Democrat, Sigfrid Hansson, on the other hand, held that it was unfair to blame the workers for opposing arbitration in legal disputes.This was already applied in practice and was stipulated in many collective agreements.What one objected to was mandatory arbitration. Hansson warned against underestimating the resistance of the workers.537 His speech was answered by Karl Gustaf Westman, who stated that it was certainly important that legislation on industrial peace had the support of the interest groups that it most closely concerned, but that these groups could not be given the power to decide themselves – independent of public bodies – over the matter in question.538 534 MFK1926:89, 192; MAK1926:283. 535 FK1926:30, pp. 67-68; FK1926:30, pp. 85-87. 536 FK1926:30, pp. 62-63. 537 FK1926:29, pp. 56-57. 538 FK1926:30, pp. 58-61.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=