the section 23 prerogatives were “clearly and distinctly founded on the nature of things itself ”, legislation was necessary to make them binding, and thus excluded from the parties’ freedom of contract. Hellner’s statement was in line with the demands that had been expressed by the employers since at least 1905. After the second chamber had turned down the bill of 1910, the government submitted it for comments to a large number of labour market organisations and public authorities.The answers, which have never been published, strongly strengthen the impression that the section 23 prerogatives were neither firmly established nor generally accepted on the Swedish labour market. In general, the employers wanted to confirm the prerogatives by legislation and referred to legal-political arguments such as a fair distribution of risks, the nature of things and the demand for an efficient enterprise, which was for the sake of the workers themselves.The trade unions held that the bills gave the employers a stronger position than they had reached in real life. Even if the workers principally recognised the employer’s right of direction as indisputable, this right had to be limited as a matter for procedural rules and dialogue. For example, when downsizing, the last person employed should be the first person fired. When the government presented a new bill in 1911, the labour movement’s approach was essentially the same as it had been the previous year. The connection now appeared even clearer between the demands for limiting the duty of obedience and the workers’ goal of being protected against dismissal due to a refusal to perform new tasks without a rise in salary. Statements by the Social Democrats, Branting, Lindqvist and others, however indicated that the principal representatives of the labour movement could evaluate protection of employment as being more important than co-determination. Parliament turned down the bills of 1910 and 1911 due to resistance in the second chamber based upon an alliance between Social Democrats and Liberals. One stumbling block for the Lip a r t i v, c h a p t e r 1 0 300
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=