Dear Social Democrats, LO umbrella union members, Byggnad union construction workers:
So which is it? Nine months ago, your organizations prophesied the end of the Swedish way of life because the accession of poorer countries to the EU would bring hordes of lazy social tourists, eager for the handouts but not keen to work. It turns out you had it exactly wrong: They are not keen for the handouts, but eager to work — and willing to compete for the privilege.
Now it turns out you don’t like this either.
The Latvian construction workers at the eye of a brewing EU storm as they try to build a school and a house on the outskirts of Stockholm — despite your union blockades — are a textbook example of the benefits of free trade. Their temporary presence in Sweden, constructing straightforward buildings at wages below the average local rate but generous by Latvian standards, constitutes the entire raison d’être for the EU’s common market.
And yet you persist in thinking that foreigners who come to Sweden to work cheaply are a danger to the wealth of your nation. You are wrong, and I hope to convince you by the time I’m done that what’s best for Latvia, for Sweden and for the Swedish construction worker is one and the same thing: Latvians should be allowed to take over as much of the Swedish building trade as they can, by competing on price while observing existing Swedish and EU laws.
Because the blockade has been so brazen and this is just a blog, I need not be polite: On this issue, your leaders are either being demagoguesDemagogue: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
or dumb, and on three different counts. Let’s take a look at the first one today:
Argument 1: The blockade is good for the Latvians.
I first came across this curious piece of reasoning back in February, when those of you at Byggnad funded a tasteless advertising campaign depicting foreign construction workersI railed against it then, too. in cheesecake poses on billboards across Stockholm, the message being that workers are being exploited if they come to Sweden to work at wages below the Swedish collective bargaining rate but above their own.
Byggnad’s official justification for its blockade of the Latvians — that it is motivated by a sincere desire to defend foreign competition from exploitation — is telling: Because bald protectionism is no longer acceptable, the argument must now be constructed so that protectionism is not the stated intent of Byggnad policies but instead arises as an inescapable consequence. Swedish blogger Chadie falls for this ploy at face value, and is unblushing in her defence of Byggnad: Apparently, the blockade is an act of tough love, a signal to the workers of the world that Sweden stands by their right to collectively price themselves out of the Swedish market. Yes, this is a kinder, gentler protectionism, for their own good, even though they might not appreciate it now. Let’s destroy their economic prospects in order to save them, shall we? Let’s kick out all the rungs between them and us on the ladder of economic prosperity, because the climb is so demeaning.
Nevermind that the bemused Latvian construction workers, when interviewed, feel that it is they who are exploiting an excellent economic opportunity in SwedenNevermind that they get free room and board, free travel to and from Latvia, free phone calls home, and accident insurance as mandated by Swedish law..
Nevermind that Latvia’s government is taking the matter to an EU court for arbitration. “This goes against our understanding of why we joined the EU,” a very peeved foreign minister fumedNevermind that the concept “voluntary collective bargaining” is interpreted by Byggnad to mean “price cartel enforced by boycotts.”.
And nevermind that if you actually delve into the specifics of this case, Byggnad’s chances in court aren’t good. In negotiations prior to the blockade, Laval un Partneri Ltd, the Latvian construction company, actually offered to raise the wages of their workers from the Latvian collective bargaining rate of 85kr/hr to the Swedish collective bargaining rate of 109kr/hr. But that wasn’t good enough. The union demanded that the Latvians work at one of the highest average local rates for construction workers in the country, at 145kr/hr.
Why? This DN analysis piece points out that other foreign construction companies have previously been been allowed to pay 109kr/hr without complaint. If it turns out that Byggnad is using blockades selectively as a negotiating tactic with companies that offer the collective wage but don’t otherwise subscribe to the rules of collective bargaining, in order to provide an “incentive” to join while also driving up average wages, that would be discriminatory, and a tough sell in a court of law.
Nevermind all that. Byggnad, you clearly have the best interests of the Latvians in mind. And now the ungrateful little upstarts are taking you to court for it.
Coming up:
Argument 2: The blockade is good for Sweden.
Argument 3: The blockade is good for Swedish construction workers.
In Vietnam the average pay for a construction worker is about 20 kr. Per day. Let•s say we double that and offer them 5 kr per hr to work in Waxholm. Okay?
Stefan: Det lettiska företaget har inte sagt vilken nivå de vill ge arbetarna. Det är en tidningsanka. Det är nämligen så att först tecknar man kollektivavtal, sedan kommer man överens om lönenivån. Eftersom de inte har kommit överens om steg 1 har inget förhandlats om steg 2.
För det andra: Företaget som fick anbudet att bygga skolan har kollektivavtal och tog sedan in det lettiska som underleverantör. I anbudet ingick att ha kollektivavtal.
Svenska medier är nu så borgerliga att de inte lyfter fram hela sanningen.
Du kan gärna också läsa: http://www.obunden.se/archives/2004/12/tungt_eustad_fa.html
Medier går ut med falska uppgifter i debatten
Att ett lettiskt företag hamnat i konflikt med svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet börjar bli välkänt. Det lettiska företaget vägrar skriva under ett svenskt kollektivavtal. Alla stora svenska medier bevakar konflikten. Men exempelvis Dagens Nyhet…
Pierre: Unskilled Vietnamese daylaborers don’t have the skills to build the modern western houses that are demanded by the market in Sweden. While I’m sure that they would appreciate the opportunity to double their wages, they would be useless, and hence a bad investment, at any wage.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we take a planeload of these Vietnamese unskilled laborers and bring them to a a new kind of construction worker training academy in Sweden, where they spend the next X years learning the skills that would allow them to build Swedish houses. It would involve teaching them not just building skills, but also reading and writing, accounting, maths and physics, English/Swedish, and a whole range of cultural cues that would allow them to make autonomous decisions in their job in such a way that they produce houses that Swedes want to buy.
Such training would be difficult, and take years. When they graduate, however, they would have a set of skills that the Swedish market values, and they’d be able to ask much more than their Vietnamese wage. How much? Probably around what the Latvians are willing to work for. And you’d pay them that much too, or else somebody else would.
Byggnad jobs aren’t threatened by unskilled laborers, but by a new supply of skilled laborers from Eastern Europe.
Which reminds me of a good point for the above post that I forgot to mention: If you let Latvians compete in Sweden’s higher-wage environment, wages for those who stay in Latvia will go up too, as the supply of skilled construction workers diminishes. Another reason why free trade is good.
Chadie:
“Det är nämligen så att först tecknar man kollektivavtal, sedan kommer man överens om lönenivån.”
Why does it have to be that way? why would it be in the Latvian’s interests to negotiate away their competitive advantage through a kind of blank check?
But I agree with you that the newspapers have not done a very good job of covering this dispute. It is very hard indeed to find objective information (in other words, not from LO/Byggnad websites) about the specifics of the negotiations, what the law is, etc… So far, I have not found any account that contradicts the DN story.
Dimridåer från LO
Bloggen med namnet obunden.se (jag förmodar att namnet är ironiskt menat) skriver om konflikten mellan Byggnads och det lettiska företaget Laval un Partneri. Chadie, anställd av LO, hävdar att DN går ut med falska uppgifter i debatten.
Frågan…
Chadie:
“Det lettiska företaget har inte sagt vilken nivå de vill ge arbetarna. Det är en tidningsanka. Det är nämligen så att först tecknar man kollektivavtal, sedan kommer man överens om lönenivån. Eftersom de inte har kommit överens om steg 1 har inget förhandlats om steg 2.”
Varför är det en omöjlighet? Om det hade varit ett helt nytt avtal hade jag hållt med. Men nu handlar det om ett hängavtal där grundlönen redan är reglerad.
I just talked to someone who came back from Vietnam last week and who goes on research visits, and according to her the Vietnamese are relentless in self-improvement, with some of the highest literacy rates in the region. So the thought-experiment training might in fact take a shorter time before Vietnamese immigrant builders could see their wages jump from 2 euro a day to closer to 10 euro an hour in Sweden.
So… you are saying basically that the workers should receive pay according to their skill. I am sure that the Latvian workers are just as skilled as the Swedish ones, so why shouldn’t they get the same pay?
And BTW, your friend is right about the Vietnamese. (I have lived here for two years.) The culture really promotes education, and people are studying extremely hard. Many students I know here are now in the process of getting their second university degree. Still — the wages are extremely low. No one can live on a “normal” wage, often paid here, even with double diplomas. Everyone is working at least two jobs.
This situation is beeing exploited by foreign investors of course. And I am not saying that it’s *all* bad — some of the money spill over to the people — but the distribution of the new wealth is terrible. Some people are getting dirt rich — others are getting next to nothing.