Dear Social Democrats, LO umbrella union members, Byggnad union construction workers:<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Now it turns out you don’t like this either.<\/p>\n
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<\/a> — 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’\u00eatre<\/em> for the EU’s common market.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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>: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”<\/p>\n <\/span> or dumb, and on three different counts. Let’s take a look at the first one today:<\/p>\n Argument 1: The blockade is good for the Latvians.<\/span> 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Nevermind that the bemused Latvian construction workers, when interviewed<\/a>, feel that it is they<\/em> 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.<\/span>.<\/p>\n 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 fumed<\/a>Nevermind that the concept “voluntary collective bargaining” is interpreted by Byggnad to mean “price cartel enforced by boycotts.”<\/span>.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, at 145kr\/hr.<\/p>\n Why? This DN analysis piece<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Coming up:<\/p>\n Argument 2: The blockade is good for Sweden.<\/span><\/p>\n Argument 3: The blockade is good for Swedish construction workers.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading
\nI 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<\/a>, too.<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n