The Nordic model is often depicted as a project developed by the
union movement. But you need at least two parties to reach a spirit of
unity. However, research has shown it is nearly always the one party
that receives the attention.
“It seems to be a law of nature that employers and their
organisations are seldom the subject of systematic analysis by social
scientists,” reports Carsten Strøby Jensen, the Danish editor of a
study of employers in the Nordic countries, financed by the Nordic
Council of Ministers.
Historically, it was the employers who most advocated the
centralisation of bargaining, which at times was opposed by the trade
union organisations. But at the start of the 1990s, there was a
strategic shift by employers. They started to call for bargaining to be
decentralised down to company level. Swedish employers took it
furthest. They closed their central bargaining offices and refused to
negotiate at any level other than at association level. At the same
time, employers resigned from a number of bodies such as the Swedish
National Labour Market Board. Instead of being able to influence
through representation the employers’ organisation became more of a
lobbyist’ and opinion-making body.
It’s not odd that such a shift took place at the start of the ’90s.
All the Nordic countries were hit by an economic slump. The most
serious crisis was in Finland and Sweden where unemployment rose to
almost 18% and just over 8% respectively.
“Not even when mass unemployment hit, were the employers able to
stop wages from rising. All the while, the trade unions maintained
their capacity for conflict. There’s quite a difference compared to the
UK, where the level of organisation dropped from 52% in 1980 to 30% in
1999,” says Anders Kjellberg, who wrote the chapter on Sweden in the
study.
He describes how Swedish employers are now returning to a more
central bargaining process. The reason for this was that a lack of
co-ordination on the employers’ part meant that certain industries,
such as forestry, allowed wages to climb too high. Not only that, but
the level of conflict increased.
An important step towards more centralised bargaining is the
co-operation agreements reached by industry in 1997. They involved 12
employer organisations, six unions within the Central Confederation of
Trade Unions (LO) and, what made it unique, two trade unions which
belonged to central organisations other than LO. The Salaried
Employees’ Association in Sweden, which belongs to TCO (the
Confederation of Professional Employees) and SACO (the Confederation of
Professional Associations), has a very strong position not just
internationally, but also in comparison to other Nordic countries. This
has caused LO’s share of the total number of trade union members to
fall from 78% in 1950 to 54% in 2000. Co-operation agreements meant a
shift of power from LO centrally to the new trade union constellation
outside LO’s control. It also meant that the bargaining the following
year in reality became the most coordinated in 25 years in terms of
level and length of the agreements.
“I think the chances of the Nordic model surviving are good. In
several respects, we are now witnessing a resurgence of what in Sweden
used to be called the spirit of unity. In the EU, too, we are
witnessing a development partly inspired by the Nordic model,” says Mr
Kjellberg.
Ari Nieminen, who wrote about Finland, also confirms that the most
important elements of the Nordic model will survive the longest. The
country’s entry into European Monetary Union, EMU, has helped further
centralise economic policy and the labour market, since it places
strict requirements on the countries taking part.
In Denmark and Norway, employers did not go as far as Sweden in
their demands for decentralisation.
“Up until last spring, I would have said that the Nordic model will
continue wholly unaltered, but in the summer we experienced a conflict
when members said no to the wage agreement negotiated by LO. The result
was a considerable rise in costs. Since then, employers have put
forward a manifesto for a new policy. The situation is somewhat
reminiscent of what happened in Sweden at the start of the ’90s, but
it’s unlikely that the Norwegian employers will ever be as aggressive
as their Swedish counterparts were,” says Torgeir Aarvaag Stokke, who
wrote the chapter on Norway.
When Carsten Strøby Jensen summarises the trends in all the
Nordic countries does he ask himself whether everything is still the
same as it was?
“The answer is both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that employers do
not actually question the existing Nordic agreement models. No, in the
sense that employers now play a more active role.
“In the future, it will not just be a matter of how employers react
to the demands of the trade union organisations. It will just as
equally be a matter of how the trade union organisations react to the
demands of the employers,” he concludes.
