Translation by Emma Anderson of a pamphlet by Gösta Kempe from 1939. We publish this as a document of workers struggle against reactionary union laws that promote class cooperation and a demonstration that questions of procedure are also political questions.

The following pamphlet was written in 1939, right after the Saltsjöbaden Agreement had been signed by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation(LO). It was largely seen as a way to consolidate the power of the social democratic leadership through class collaboration with the organized capitalists. As the pamphlet describes, the mass membership opposed the concessions every step of the way but was constantly pushed back by being excluded from votes and through propaganda campaigns. It is a cautionary tale of where reformism takes on more and more responsibilities in managing capitalism built on peace between classes.

While the pamphlet is eight decades old it is still relevant today, most recently the Saltsjöbadet Agreement(and its propaganda of “solidarity based wage politics”) was used to try and delegitimize the independent union Swedish Dock Workers Union’s strike. The purpose of the strike was to obtain a collective bargain agreement and the right to have union safety officers, which in the end they got. During this the LO-leadership(along with Näringslivet) has again created a similar situation, it is pushing for restricting the right to strike and take industrial actions. The only difference is that they are pushing for a legislature this time so that they can combat trade unions that are already not under the Saltsjöbadet Agreement. They again push the propaganda line that it is needed to resolve the conflicts in the docks and that the strikes are “unwieldy” by being a threat to the “solidarity based wage politics”. Membership is excluded from voting on the issue while larger and larger parts of the membership are opposing the law.

Core to understanding the Saltsjöbadet Agreement is to understand the Swedish Model of the labor market, which the Saltsjöbadet Agreement helped establish. While other states, such as the US, has a state-mandated minimum-wage and the labor movement can mostly only affect how the labor market functions through laws, the Swedish Models is based on agreements between the two parties on the labor market, employers and employees. Some labor rights are also codified in both law and in the collective bargaining agreement as a way to ensure that workers under the collective bargaining agreement can keep their protections even if the law was to change. To summarize, the Swedish model is designed to keep the peace on the labor market through negotiations and agreements between both parts. What the Social democratic government after the 2018 general election is arguing now when it comes to the legislature against the right to strike is that if strikes are used in any other cases than an absolute last resort(and never against an employer who has signed the collective bargaining agreement) then trade unions would start to favor the interests of their membership over peace and harmony on the labor market, between workers and capital.

The most important lesson in this pamphlet is as follows; for the workers’ movement to be as strong as possible it needs to destroy the obstacles of class struggle, and never willingly submit to any forms of class collaboration in return for “advantages” or short-term gains. In other words, oppose reformism and “trade unionist” politics.

It’s hard to find much concrete info on the author, Gösta Kempe, but he was a member of the then called Swedish Communist Party which is now Vänsterpartiet.

Saltsjöbaden Agreement with Comments by Gösta Kempe

History

On the 20th December 1938, the working class received a very special Christmas gift when the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) signed a main agreement with the Employers Organization. This was an agreement that had the purpose of determining the form of interaction between workers and employers in Sweden.

To understand the formation of this agreement it’s necessary to have a historical overview of the bourgeois reaction’s pursuit of anti-unionist legislation. If we return to 1928 we can see the bourgeois parties enthusiastically joining together in the struggle for the collective bargain agreement law and the law regarding the labor court. At that point in time, they had a majority in parliament and could complete the legislature despite the unanimous opinion of the workers.

But the bourgeois reaction was not satisfied with this and continued its struggle, through some labor leaders capitulating and becoming not only loyal to the decisive class-laws but also accepting them as a neutral legal instrument above classes. This made the reactions vanguard, the right-wing parties, more brave, and they continued their pursuit of destroying the freedoms of the trade union movement.

The employers now discovered an “innocent” third-person who were being “terrorized” by the organized workers. They now demanded a new law that would defend this innocent third party during economic conflicts. The Lindman administration tasked a professor Bergendal to investigate the right of neutrality for the third-man in labor disputes. On the 30th of November, he submitted a proposal for a law on the topic. It was rejected but the new social democratic government immediately started a new investigation under the same name, trettonmannakommisionen. On the 4th of May, this commission submitted a new proposal that in many parts made the original proposal harsher. Despite the proposal being almost unanimously rejected by the trade union movement, the government made a proposition in parliament in 1935 that was mainly based on the commission’s proposal. The government’s proposal, that was named “lex Möller”, caused heated debates in the entire trade union movement. Despite the LO-leaderships adherence to the governments line it could only mobilize a small number of its trade unions. A majority of the LO-unions opposed the law about a third-person and invited both the government and members of parliament to its protest resolutions. This strong extra-parliamentary action was undoubtedly why the proposal fell, not even the proposers daring to vote for it.

But did anyone dare to think the law for a third-person had been buried? No! Through the right-wing parties and people’s party, the reaction had shown its face to put forward motions on the matter. It was not only on this front that the right-wing parties and reactionary elements in the people’s party tried to restrict the freedom of the trade union movement. They have for a long time fought for a so-called labor peace law and justified it by stating that the trade unions are causing a disturbance on the labor market. By being tactically on the offensive and with a good portion of nastiness they have made the social democratic government waver. Under pressure from reactionary circles both in and outside of parliament the government created a committee with the task of investigating the question of labor peace. It was created on the 31st of December 1934 and consisted of leader Nothin, editor Severin, and director Elov Eriksson. A year later on the 9th of December 1935, the committee submitted its report. It consisted of several proposals (and conclusions) on how to regulate the relation between workers and employers on the labor market. The proposal from the Nothin-committee included the idea of making strikes at firms vital to society forbidden with the government as a full arbiter, forbidding workers from holding votes on the proposals of negotiations and delegates and forbidding blockades that aren’t connected to a labor conflict.

The committee had from time to time “considered” if it wasn’t better that the rules and norms could be implemented through an agreement between all major organizations and not through the legislature. Apparently, the Nothin-committee had only taken an impression of the mighty opinion released against the third-person law inasmuch as they recommended such a line.

This wink from the Nothin-committee was picked up on by the LO-leadership in the spring of 1936, as it proposed to negotiate with the Employers Organization regarding certain labor market issues. But the Employers Organization also had its part in the initiative. LO’s journal Fackföreningsrörelsen admitted the following,

“The initiative to negotiations between the Swedish Employers Organization and LO holds both parties in high regard… The initiative is not spontaneous or hasty.”

All things considered, the government had already probed this terrain before the negation initiative was made public. A committee was created with five representatives from each major organization and was named the Labor Market Committee. The negotiations have been happening at Saltsjöbadet, behind closed doors, away from the reality of class struggle. At the same time, the LO-leadership has been systematically pushing propaganda on the ideological front amongst trade union members to make the proposal easier to accept. Under the banner “solidarity based wage politics”, the aim was to try and theoretically justify its class collaboration line. Since the Saltsjöbadet agreement was released one is no longer confused as to why there was such an intense propaganda campaign to accept the false and trade-union hostile theories of “solidarity based wage politics”. It is now clear that the purpose was to make it easier for the workers to accept the proposal from the labor market proposal without any reservations.

With this short orientation, we have sought to lay out the historical context of the Saltsjöbadet Agreements formation. This is about a continuing process where the bourgeois reaction wants to play the leading role. The Saltsjöbadet Agreement is an attempt to neutralize the rising political influence of the working class and to make them voluntarily submit to the demands of this reaction. To accept this agreement is to betray oneself and will lead to dire consequences for the entire labor movement.

The Contents of the Saltsjöbaden Agreement

The main agreement, that was signed a few days before Christmas 1938, between LO and the Employers Organization is commonly referred to as the Saltsjöbadet agreement. The agreement is divided up into five chapters: Chapter 1 is about rulings regarding the labor market committee. Chapter 2 is about the order of negations. Chapter 3 deals with the question of “termination of employment and layoffs”(in other words paragraph 23). Chapter 4 envisions “restrictions of economic industrial actions” (in other words a defense of the Third Man). Chapter 5 finally describes “restrictions of conflicts affecting functions vital to society”.

These five chapters make up the “Saltsjöbaden agreement”. The goal is to continually update the agreement with new paragraphs in as much as the working class doesn’t demand the agreement in its current form. The labor market committee will keep its negations going, where it will bring up the rules on voting. Where they want to get with this was already signaled by the Nothin-committee, it has already been very directional in other aspects so it is not hard to guess what the result they want is. Within the LO-leadership there have already been preparations to restrict the rights of its members. To help justify this editor Lind was tasked with writing a pamphlet titled “Union Democracy”, which serves as a good representation of the Nothin-committee report.

CHAPTER I

Labor Market Council

This council would consist of six members, three from LO and three from the Employers Organisation. The tasks of the council are to handle termination of employment and layoffs, interpreting the main agreement, restricting economic industrial actions, conflicts that affect functions vital to society and in general issues regarding the labor market.

The council is also tasked with being the arbiter of resolving twists regarding restrictions of economic industrial actions. If the members can not come to an agreement both parts will call in a “neutral” chairperson who will take part in the decision.

If one only looks at the council’s tasks it may appear as if the agreement has a democratic character. On the other hand if one more closely studies the agreements more reactionary paragraphs the dictatorial position of the council becomes more apparent. The trade unions that accept the main agreement will effectively surrender its leadership right of a veto to the council. This affects every case that falls under the main agreement.

The summoning of a “neutral” chairperson can only be done in questions that deal with chapter 4, in other words, the restriction of economic industrial actions. Nonetheless, this “neutral” chairperson can be fatal for the workers’ side. Experience has shown that the “neutral” chairperson almost always follows the employers’ line, workers, therefore, hold no illusions that they are actually neutral. The fact that the “neutral” chairperson can’t be summoned to help resolve other questions is a tactical move. They are first trying to win over the majority of the unionized workers to the principles of the main agreement. If only the trade unions join then more reactionary additions are already ready to be added, additions that would have been too challenging to add in the first revision of the agreement.

CHAPTER II

Order of Negotiations

The order of negotiations as described in the main agreement is a reactionary extension of the collective bargaining agreement order of negotiations. It will encompass legal disputes as well as interest disputes. Through this, it will get a wider base than a labor court. The order of negotiations encompasses the non-establishment of or prolonging of collective wage agreements. The main purpose is for disputes regarding working conditions to not be sent to labor court or for industrial action to be taken before the parts have tried to reach a solution through negotiations. Every industrial action is closed off, even if allowed by the collective bargaining agreement before the issue has gone through the respective instances according to the order of the agreement of negotiations. What does this entail in practice? An issue that is very heated will go through a time-killing process before a definitive solution is reached. First, the issue will be dealt with on a local level. If it can’t be solved then it will be sent to a central negotiation, if it is again not solved it will be sent to the labor market council. Indeed, they have prescribed a set time interval between every instance but one must still expect it to become a large bureaucratic apparatus.

The order of negotiations will especially be a shackle around the feet of the trade unions, who have a need for quick calls to action against nasty and unreasonable employers. On this question, one can apply the old saying: “While the grass grows, the cow dies”.

CHAPTER III

Termination of employment and layoffs (§ 23)

The controversial paragraph 23, which has been a cause of big discussions and negotiations at trade union congresses and at agreement negotiations, would according to the workers’ side have its claws removed through the establishment of the main agreement. At a closer inspection of the contents of the paragraphs, one soon comes to a realization that no real change has happened. The employer’s right to lead and distribute work, to freely employ and fire workers, regardless if they are organized or not, will continue to happen without any rules being broken. There is an added right to negotiate a firing before it happens, but this does not change anything in practice since this is already described in almost all trade union’s collective bargaining agreement.

The main agreement recommends a seven-day warning before termination of employment and layoffs of workers who have been employed for at least one year. This could have meant a softening of paragraph 23 but in reality, this rule is invalidated by the last sentence in the paragraph, which states the following:

“If a situation occurs, which causes a reduction in the labor force in a shorter time period before the recommended time before a notice about termination of employment and layoffs, and the situation could not have been predicted by the employer, then the notice should be submitted as soon as possible.”

This section should be self-explanatory. It shreds the entire ruling on the notice about termination of employment and layoffs, making it merely an illusion. Who will decide if the employer could have predicted a decrease in production or not? The employer themselves of course!

In reality, there have been no changes on the issue of termination of employment and layoffs. If the employer wants, it warns seven days before the time that it would otherwise have been doing the firing. The only change for the worker is that the worker gets a notification telling them that their work ends in seven days. The worker doesn’t get to stay and work any longer than before. If the employer “forgets” to send out this notification seven days in advance, it can get around the ruled on deadline for a notice about termination of employment and layoffs by simply stating that it couldn’t predict a loss of market demand and so on. What is then left of this so-called softening of paragraph 23? One could argue that the paragraph has in some aspects created more order. Thus, one has concretely outlined how a firing should be done and recommends taking the workers ability into account. Who will decide the ability of the labor force? Some say both parts. They are correct formally, but in practice, the employers’ line will be the dominating one, as it gets the chance to legally fire “displeasing” workers.

Paragraph 5 in the third chapter means regulations that could massively affect the workers. To be brief it means that an employer can monopolize the labor force. We imagine a firm with professionally qualified workers, who use an appropriate opportunity to improve their wages and are therefore forced to leave their positions. The employers report the matter through their organization to the labor market council, who with the support of the main agreement can order the trade union to force their members to return to work. This doesn’t have to be in connection with a wage movement — it can even happen under other circumstances, where workers for some reason which to change the workplace. If one draws this paragraph to its logical conclusion workers at a workplace would become serfs to its employer.

CHAPTER IV

Restrictions of Industrial actions (Third Man)

This chapter is primarily shaped after the government proposition of 1935 regarding some economic industrial actions, it fell due to the mighty opposition from unionized workers. Now they are seeking other methods and tricks to get the workers to accept this restriction of trade union freedoms.

The restriction primarily deals with industrial actions against a third-man during economic conflicts but also against industrial actions against the other side.

When it comes to the third man it was an issue rolled out by the right-wing parties and Employers Organization in connection to the Becker-conflict in Stockholm 1930. What happened? The company Wilh. Becker and the new company M. Hansén were producing painting color, lacquer, and chemicals. Their workers had a collective bargaining agreement, while the workers in the many company stores in Stockholm did not have one. The Swedish Commercial Employees’ Union, to which the workers were members of, proposed establishing a collective bargaining agreement. The companies rejected the proposition. The union responded with a blockade against all company stores, along with the transportation to and from them. The conflict became drawn out. It went on from the 3rd of May to 14th of November 1930.

The rest of the trade union movement acted in solidarity by enacting blockades against merchants who sold the company products. Who would be correct in criticizing the trade union movements’ tactics in this case? Here we were dealing with an employer who opposed the establishment of a collective bargaining agreement for its store workers. The trade union movement used the only tools at hand for a struggle against ruthless employers, that is to say, strikes, blockades, and shows of solidarity from other workers. With what right can the employers and distributors say that they were unfairly treated by the trade union movement? As usual, it was the employers with the support of its merchants who were selling their scab products who caused the conflict. If there then was a need for legislature on the labor market it should have been directed at the employers instead of the trade union movement since employers always cause the “disturbance”. Despite this, the right-wing sought to establish a law against the workers with the Becker-conflict as the reason.



What is the “neutral” third man?

The “Neutral” third man is according to the Saltsjöbadet Agreement all those who work during strikes not approved by the labor court, in other words, scabs. It can also be decoys who takes over a company whose previous owner did not pay out the wages owed to the workers unless the workers can prove that the new owner knew about the unpaid wages. Other included are merchants and traders who distribute and sell from companies where conflict is ongoing, stock owners who own below 50 percent of the stocks in the company. All of these are to be treated as “neutral” third men, who the trade unions are not allowed to enact industrial actions against.

How can one explain that stock owners, who own 49 percent of the stocks in a company, should be seen as a neutral third man? Every individual who in some way own part of a company should be seen as a part in the conflict between the workers and its employer. It should be seen as natural that a stock owner who owns 49 percent has the same interest as the one who owns 51 percent.

On the other hand, the agreement dictates that those who give economic support to a side lose their right to be seen as neutral, this in reality just means those who give donations to striking workers.

Security duties

Security duties are the work that at the eruption of conflict still needs to be finished for the operation to be finished in a technically correct manner, as well as work to not put people, buildings, machines, pets, and so on in danger. With all right Swedish Building Workers’ Union steward Linde asked the employer’s interpretation of chapter 4, § 9, mom. f) regarding security duties. He wrote the following in their union paper:

“It would not surprise me if the employers with the support of this agreement would demand workers finish the roof of a building before they can go on strike during a conflict.”

With this motivation that exists in the main agreement, the employer can abuse the paragraph during a conflict for its own gain at the cost of the workers. For agricultural workers, it would be practically impossible to ever take industrial action since the salvage of the crops, milking and feeding the cattle counts as security duties. The landowner and large farmers can, on the other hand, take industrial actions against the agricultural workers without the workers being able to defend themselves. As a consequence of the main agreement, the workers have to subordinate themselves the employers.

In practically all trades and branches of industry, the employer can successfully abuse the paragraph regarding security duties. At the same time, the paragraph does not describe any security for the labor force. The employer can without any account for the partner and children of the worker throw the worker out into unemployment. Here if anywhere would a security paragraph be reasonable.

Supporters of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement claim that the agreement also goes for the employers. They claim it includes “neutral rules” that limit both the industrial actions of both sides. Are they trying to turn the agreement into some sort of justice existing above the classes? Those that think along these lines have completely ignored the class contradictions between workers and employers.

Workers collective action through trade unions is the only way that workers can successfully raise their interests against employers. Every restriction of the trade union’s freedoms means reducing its ability to take action. The Employers Organization, on the other hand, finds its most effective weapon in the giant capital that its members possess. Through its economic position of power and absolute power over the company they can, regardless of any laws and agreements, make sure its interests are met at the cost of the workers. They can even do this without breaking any laws and agreements. While the agreement is still in effect they can lower the piece wages and raise the work rate, which in effect raises the rate of exploitation of the workers, they can fire workers en masse without coming in conflict with the main agreement or the collective bargaining agreement law. On the trade union side, one has to understand the differences between the ability of workers and employers to use industrial actions. If one does it becomes much easier to understand the enthusiasm for the Saltsjöbadet Agreement amongst the employers and reactionary circles.

CHAPTER V

Treatment of conflicts concerning functions vital to society

The issue of conflicts concerning functions vital to society was also subject to the Nothin-committee’s investigation. The main agreement does not outline any concrete guidelines about which firms should be seen as doing “functions vital to society” and therefore the supporters of the agreement ignore this very important paragraph. The first paragraph states the following:

“To prevent industrial disputes from affecting functions that are vital to society as much as possible, both the Employers Organization and LO will hastily review every conflict situation where an organisation or public agency or by a similar organ that represents the public’s interest deem the conflict to be a threat to the interest of the public.”

With the support of this paragraph, disputes in most trades and branches of industry can be assigned the category of “concerning functions vital to society”. All state and municipal firms can be considered “functions vital to society” but also private firms, which industry can not with a bit of “good intentions” also be assigned the same category? Even if the propaganda for the Saltsjöbadet Agreement states that it would only affect hospitals and the like, it is not possible to explain away the fact that this paragraph is so unclear that it could be used to consider key industries for the Swedish economy as “functions vital to society”.

Demands of restricting or ending a dispute that has erupted at a firm, which is deemed “concerning functions vital to society”, can be put forward by the government, county government, city council or similar. The labor market council then has to test the demand. If a majority is reached in the council it will tell LO and the Employers Organisation to end or restrict the conflict.

This paragraph alone would have tough consequences for the trade union movement.

The agreement has legal ramifications, but can be terminated in six months

For the trade union that accepts the main agreement, it will also have legal ramifications according to the collective bargaining agreement law. It means that breaking the main agreement falls under the jurisdiction of the labor court.

The agreement’s period of notice is six months, provided it ends at the same time as the collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise, it can’t be ended before the collective bargaining agreement period of notice.

It is up to every trade union to establish the main agreement with the corresponding organization on the employer’s side.

A general assessment of the main agreement

The Saltsjöbadet Agreement only means disadvantages for the trade union movement and advantages for the employers. Saltsjöbadet Agreement supporters within the trade union movement argue that one can sacrifice some parts of our freedoms since the labor movement has already won such great political influence in the social institutions. They capitulate under the pressure from big finance in the same way that many democracies today capitulate to fascism. The consequences are the same: for every compromise, the appetite of the reaction gets worse.

The Employers Organization has dictated the reactionary content of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement and the worker representatives have fallen away. The employers have shown that they are superior to LO in defending their own class interests.

The Saltsjöbadet Agreement is a straitjacket that restricts the freedoms of the trade union movement to a very large extent. It is a gateway to a general offensive from the capitalists to lower the living standards of the working-class.

The Press’ assessment of the “Saltsjöbaden Agreement”

The signatories of the main agreement claim that the agreement has gotten good press. This is being economical with the truth. The bourgeois press has enthusiastically accepted the Saltsjöbadet Agreement in unison. But they aren’t just happy, there is still a looming fear that the workers will prevent the agreement from being signed. The social democratic press has very embarrassingly referred to the agreement and given a very scant political analysis. No enthusiasm can be found. A small warning can be read between the lines from time to time.

The union press has taken a strongly critical position against the agreement. The Hotel and Restaurant workers paper “Hotel-revue” first issue of 1939 writes:

“Do the organized workers have a reason to on one hand look at the main agreement critically and the other practically? It can not be allowed to swallow it without and critique. It would be to put a too big of a pressure on one’s guts. Especially since of the cooks was the Employers Organization and the most influential of the two[…] […] It serves nothing to hide the fact the employer’s’ interests have won great success in the main agreement. Paragraph 23 has been more concrete in their favor in a manner that probably surprises even them.”

In the Typographical Union paper, their editor Wessel develops his critical points against the main agreement and draws certain parallels to the “Workers’ Front” in Germany. He writes:

“The apologistics around the so-called Saltsjöbadet Agreement has shown the world that the Swedish trade union movement — the proportionally strongest in the world — is willing to put itself in a straitjacket. It is as if one is searching to form a workers front after famous pattern. The only difference is that in Sweden it is to be done voluntarily by workers while it has been done by violence in other countries.”



There has been dramatic secrecy around the negotiations that almost border on ridiculous. In the same manner, some authors of the Saltsjöbadet agreement at a conference in France stated in front of a surprised audience of the French employers and a small number of workers how idyllic Sweden is, “where wolves and sheep cooperate.”

In the builder’s union paper their steward Linde, who is also a LO-secretariat member, states the following:

“As a general judgment of the whole agreement, we are sorry to say that the advantages come at a price that is all too high and one has to ask if the agreement will actually be able to prevent any future legislation. On top of that, the way that the agreement was accepted is questionable, to say the least. Having discussed and decided on the agreement at a LO-congress when the negotiations started would have been much more reasonable.“

From these statements, we can clearly see that trade union leaders are very critical of the agreement. Furthermore, it is completely natural that trade union leaders with a sense of duty could not recommend the workers in Sweden to voluntarily disarm itself.

Legislation or the “Saltsjöbaden Agreement”?

Supporters of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement only have one “argument” to push the agreement on unionized workers, which is that it is either the agreement is passed or face legislation against the trade union movement. They claim that the right-wing parties want more anti-trade union laws while wishing that they can circumvent this by solving the issue through the agreement.

Does this “argument” hold up? We say no! The workers’ parties have a majority in parliament these repressive laws should be stopped there already. How could one suppose that this majority would push through laws against the trade unionist movement? It would be an open betrayal of the voters and against democracy. The threat of legislature as an alternative to Saltsjöbadsavtalet is, in other words, an emergency argument with no real basis.

On the other hand, there is a real danger of further legislature if the trade union movement accepts the Saltsjöbadet Agreement. The reactionary forces are counting on first winning worker-community and restrictions of trade union freedoms. With this, they can submit propositions with a much larger force on legislation in parliament in a much more serious manner. The legislation will probably be justified by saying that not all workers and employers are encompassed by the Saltsjöbadet Agreement since the workers have already accepted the principles of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement, it would only be a formality to pass a law on it.

Everything, therefore, points to it being easier to solve the problem before it gets worse. If one wants to avoid further class-laws against the trade union movement, one has to forcefully reject the Saltsjöbadet Agreement.

Peace on the labor market and economy

The authors of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement legitimate it by saying that both workers and employers need to take business into consideration. What do they mean by “take business into consideration”? For them, it is synonymous with the profits they are striving for. The profits weigh more for the capitalists than the interests of the motherland and people.



Instead of compromises with the demands of reaction, the labor movement should use its growing political influence to restrict the power of the employers and big finance. As long as the employer is free to exploit labor force they should be forced to also have responsibilities to it. Instead of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement and repressive laws, we should consider laws that defend the labor force, so that workers who have been employed for 10, 20 and 30 years can’t just be thrown out into unemployment. Workers that have been employed for a long time at a company should be guaranteed compensation when production is reduced. It should also be a law that employers have to finance effective unemployment insurance.

It is necessary that the bourgeois reaction’s offensive against workers and their trade unions are met with a counter-offensive.

The tasks of the trade union movement in the struggle against the “Saltsjöbaden Agreement”

The LO secretariat and representatives are split on the Saltsjöbadet Agreement. The majority are for a line of capitulation and recommend that unionized workers just swallow the agreement whole.

The majority in the LO-leadership has effectively set union democracy aside by signing the agreement. Such an important question as the Saltsjöbadet Agreement should be decided on by the members through a vote. We should expect to be able to vote on it in a LO-congress at the very least. The Saltsjöbadet Agreement is even worded in such a way that it intervenes in LO’s own statutes.

It’s now up to every trade union to decide whether to establish such a main agreement or not. We have to hope that the trade union leaderships don’t make the same mistake as LO by not listening to its members before signing an agreement with the employers. When it comes to such an important question, the broadest democracy must be put into practice. Every single member should be able to make their voice heard on the matter. This in practice necessitates a general vote on it in every trade union. Of course, before a vote, there needs to be a campaign of consciousness-raising amongst the trade union members to show what the actual contents of the Saltsjöbadet Agreement really is.



Education is the most effective weapon in our struggle against the Saltsjöbadet agreement. Therefore we recommend that all trade union leaders bring it up for discussion at union meetings, organize study groups, send educational articles to the trade union press, and so on.

The reactions attempt to create splits amongst the organized workers through the Saltsjöbadet Agreement need to be relentlessly pushed back against. The trade union movement needs to act as one against the common enemy and fight against every attempt by the enemy to shackle the working-class.

The struggle against the “Saltsjöbaden Agreement” concerns the entire working-class

What is needed now is to defend the rights and freedoms of the trade union movement, in essence, to defend the social and economic interests of the working class in the struggle against the employers.

At the LO-congress of 1931 and 1932, representatives spoke out against any form of repressive legislation directed at the trade union movement. The representatives attacked the right-wing parties with very sharp statements and ended with this powerful call:

“Workers, men and women! The freedoms of the trade union movement are is threatened! The workers have never before been so vulnerable to restrictions of these freedoms. The workers have also never before been so ready to strike back and face losses than now.”

Unionized workers! These words have never been more relevant than right now! Follow the call to action by the 1932 LO-congress! Reject the Saltsjöbadet Agreement! Let us stand guard to defend our proud and strong trade union movement. The struggle to build the trade union movement has cost far too many sacrifices to be able to justify crawling into its repression voluntarily.

If one wants to defend the economic and social conquests of the Swedish working-class — if one wants to better the conditions for the most marginalized peoples in society — if one wants to defend democracy and the nation’s right to self-determination against the international and national reaction and fascism — then one has to fight the Saltsjöbadet Agreement!