quence was that the employer got a far-reaching and open-ended right to change the conditions of work and the worker a corresponding duty to obey these orders. Simultaneously from the “nature” of the collective agreement, the court derived the opinion that the worker had a right to organise. It is time for a conclusion to the first issue of part IV. During the years 1900-1930 a great number of representatives from the labour movement’s two branches questioned the employer’s right to direct and distribute work.The published as well as the unpublished material from 1900 to 1928 shows that the labour movement’s questioning of the section23 prerogatives was closely connected to protection against dismissals and what salary should be paid when the employer changed the terms of the working tasks.Thus, Schiller’s,Adlercreutz’ and Folke Schmidt’s theses are supported. However, their distinction between protection of employment and the demand for industrial democracy appears to be forced. The labour movement’s sceptical approach not only concerned the workers’ protection against dismissal.When it comes to the extensive body of information from the debates in parliament, it is evident that the strong resistance of the left wing parties was also founded on ambitions to defend individual integrity and freedom as intrinsic values of working life. Inevitably parallels were drawn to the emergence of political democracy. Moreover, industrial democracy was recommended as a means of promoting the employers’ interest in running a profitable enterprise. Even if the labour movement was split on this issue, during the 1920s these aspects, alongside the issues about employment security and wages, got more, not less attention at the same time as the argumentation was definitely more articulated. c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 315
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=