Work and Wellbeing in the Nordic Countries

Critical Perspectives on the World's Best Working Lives

Helge Hvid, Eivind Falkum, Helge Hvid, Eivind Falkum

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351169943
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Labour & Industrial Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Nordic countries have the world's best working life. Unlike in many other countries, global competition has not created inequality, uncertainty, long working hours, standardization and restrictive managerial control. The main reason for this lies in the way interests are expressed and conflicts are resolved. Both employees and employers are well organized and both recognize the interests of the other. Working life develops in a constant interaction between conflict and compromise.

This book examines working conditions in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. It explores how these good working conditions are created and maintained. The chapters explain:

• 
  
  

• How work organization is formed

• 
  
  

• How education, training and work place learning give access to the labour market

• 
  
  

• How work is managed in the public sector

• 
  
  

• How precarious work unfolds in the Nordic countries.

Work and Wellbeing in the Nordic Countries is addressed to all those who have interest in the quality of working life. It will be of particular use to all students, academics and policy makers working in the fields of social policy, wellbeing, management studies, employment relations, work sociology and work psychology.

Part I

An overview

Introduction

Helge Hvid and Eivind Falkum

In this Part we will briefly present where we are (Chapter 1), and then we will explain how we came to be where we are (Chapter 2).

Chapter 1: Nordic working life, shaped through conflicts and compromises. By Helge Hvid, Eivind Falkum and Arild Henrik Steen.

In this chapter, there are references to some of the many comparative analyses that state that the Nordic countries, including Norway and Denmark, are rather special in terms of working conditions. You will also find explanations for this: the strong organization of collective interests, the general recognition and acceptance of opposing interests, and the building of an institutional network where interests can meet and compromises made, in individual work groups, and at company, sector, regional and national level. Further, we discuss other explanations: the culture, with its high degree of trust (but perhaps it was the interest-based institutions that created and still maintain the high degree of trust?), the welfare state (but are the Nordic welfare states so unique?) and the economy (which is quite successful, but without specific advantages).

Chapter 2: The peculiar history of Nordic working life. By Eivind Falkum, Helge Hvid and Per Bonde Hansen.

The main argument here is that conflict has been the driving force in the history of Nordic working life. The Nordic labour market systems were created through serious conflicts in the labour market. The social-democratic society was formed out of the conflicts, in which employees’ interest in wages, employment and democracy at work were reconciled with employers’ interests in free market conditions and earnings. During the 1980s, however, the social-democratic project weakened, and neo-liberal understandings began to penetrate society. It turned out that the Nordic approach was by no means a bulwark against neo-liberalism. On the contrary, a Nordic-influenced neo-liberalism developed, which, on the one hand, has provided far more space for the market, but on the other, has managed to maintain a certain degree of equality, safety and quality in working life.

Both chapters present the Nordic experiences as unique. However, it is also underlined that the Nordics are not alternatives to the global trends in work, organization and labour market. They represent a variant of the global trends. Employers and employees in the Nordic countries are facing the same challenges as in other developed countries. However, the approach to dealing with these challenges is somewhat different.

Chapter 1

Nordic working life, shaped through conflicts and compromises

Helge Hvid, Eivind Falkum and Arild Henrik Steen

The core of the Nordic model

In 1961, the Norwegian sociologist Sverre Lysgaard wrote the book The Worker Collectivity. A Study of the Sociology of the Subordinates (Lysgaard, 2001 [1961]), which made a significant contribution to the basic understandings that underlie the Nordic welfare societies. The book is a standard textbook in Norway and is also read widely in Denmark and Sweden, where most people can read Norwegian. It has never been translated, like much good Nordic working life research. The book presents an understanding of industrial workplace relations, which generally form the basis for the Nordic model.

Based on studies at a Norwegian paper mill, Lysgaard develops a theory of the relationship between workers and employers, not based on class theory but on system theory. Employers and management work in a technical/economic system, where efficiency and profit are paramount. This leads to unilateral, insatiable, relentless demands on the employees. Employers who do not follow the imperative of the system will be unable to continue for long as employers. The workers, on the other hand, form a human system. This system is not unilateral but highly diverse throughout life. The human system is limited (there are limits to how far it can fulfil the demands of employers) and is thus in conflict with the insatiability of the technical/economic system. Finally, the human system seeks security, which contrasts with the relentlessness of the technical/economic system.

At the factory Lysgaard studied, the workers could only ensure the maintenance of the human system by standing together. They formed a third system, the ‘workers’ collective’, which was a buffer between the technical/economic system and the human system. The workers’ collective created a certain balance between the two systems. The workers’ collective accepted the imperatives of the technical/economic system, but defended wages, limited work performance and defended security.

The fascinating thing about the relationship between the technical/economic system and the human system is that the relationship is at the same time characterized by conflict and mutual dependency. The company wants as much from the workers as possible. However, the company and society as a whole are dependent on the workers’ defence of their working conditions through the workers’ collective. Without workers defending their working conditions, there would soon be no available workers for the companies. The workers rely on their shared strength to create decent working conditions. At the same time, however, they depend on the jobs the company creates, and therefore they are also dependent on the rational profit-seeking management of the company. We thus have a contradiction between two subsystems that depend on each other. This contradiction finds a solution through the workers’ collective.

This basic understanding is the core of the Nordic model. The two sides of the labour market recognize each other’s existence and eligibility. One party does not seek to wipe out the other party. However, at the same time, both parties are also aware that they are in conflict with the other party. Their eligibility is therefore dependent on their ability to produce results at the negotiating table or occasionally in open conflict.

A group of researchers (Karlsson et al., 2015; Axelsson et al., 2016) returned to Lysgaard’s paper mill in 2010 and replicated Lysgaard’s analysis. The factory had completely changed. In the 1950s, the work was physically hard, dirty and dangerous. In 2010, the paper mill was an automated process industry, and the workers monitored the processes, maintained the technical system and managed the workflow. These fundamental changes in the work, however, had not weakened the workers’ collective. The workers still protected their wages, limited their performance and defended employment security through their collective. The biggest difference that had occurred in the 50 years was related to the technical/economic system. It was now quite clear that the technical/economic system was not one system but two systems. An economic system, represented by daily management, was still unilateral, insatiable and relentless. The technical system, however, was represented by technicians and workers who were oriented towards technical possibilities and limitations and quality. The workers’ collective was now largely influenced by the technical system. It not only defended wages, workload and working hours but also the technical system. It thus defended quality standards and opposed overload of the technical system.

The development we saw at the paper mill can be largely transferred to the labour market as a whole. The physically hard and dirty factory work has declined, and a major part of the work has become knowledge-oriented. There are those who argue that earlier conflicts have been abolished (Nordström & Ridderståle, 1999). Knowledge has become the main means of production. Knowledge is not owned by the employer but by the knowledge worker him/herself, and workers themselves can therefore decide how and how much they want to work.

However, it seems that present knowledge work is also in conflict with the economic system. Knowledge workers are not exempted from high demands, long working hours, stress and uncertain employment conditions (Sørensen & Holman 2014). On the contrary, according to the Norwegian Work Life Barometer,¹ knowledge workers report long working hours, high workload and many and conflicting requirements (see Chapter 15). Knowledge workers are deeply involved in the maintenance and development of the technical system. At the same time, the daily lives of knowledge workers are highly influenced by the strength of their opposition to an economic system. Many knowledge workers have acknowledged that and build something that corresponds to Lysgaard’s workers’ collective, combining trade unions, professional communities and communities of practice.

Knowledge workers are highly organized in trade unions, elect union representatives at work and seek to protect themselves from the unsustainable demands of the economic system. However, knowledge workers not only defend their interests as employees, they also defend formal and informal professional quality standards. Similarly, the workers in the paper mill not only defended their interests as employees but also defended maintenance of the technical system and the quality of the product. The workers’ collective defended both the human system and the technical system.

The content of the work, and the quality and social benefits of its products, have thus also become a key aspect of the relationship between employers and workers. This is not new, but it has become more pronounced. We see professional groups protesting and acting against a deterioration in the quality of their work. We see industry workers expressing their reluctance towards the quality of products delivered to customers. In other cases, conflicts regarding quality are less prominent, as when employers and workers work together to create employee-driven innovation (Høyrup & Møller, 2012). However, it is worth emphasizing that relations between employers and workers in terms of quality and social benefits of products are not separate from the more traditional conflict of interests of the labour market. Indeed, they are linked to it. Several studies conclude that worker involvement in work organization and work quality is best in companies where trade union representatives are most involved in the management (Falkum et al., 2017).

Hence, the fundamental narrative that formed the basis for the Nordic model is still present. The fundamental narrative lives in the vast majority of workplaces. The basic narrative is maintained by some of the strongest institutions in society: unions, employers’ associations and the state.

In the Nordic countries, a kind of democracy and welfare state has been developed, which, more than in most other countries, relies on wage labour and the defence of conflicting interests. This is also reflected in the difference between EU and Nordic terminology. In the EU, people talk about ‘social partners’: there are different partners in a joint project, creating jobs and wealth. In the Nordic countries, people talk about the social parties, i.e. different parties representing different interests in the labour market. EU rhetoric relates to consensus, while Nordic rhetoric relates to compromise between differences (Kettunen, 2012).

Researchers at Fafo, a research centre affiliated to LO, the confederation of Norwegian unions, argue that the Nordic model is a political construction consisting of a balance of power and ‘a constructive conflict partnership’ (Dølvik et al., 2015). This concept also underlines the existence and acceptance of different, conflicting interests.

Organization of the labour market

The most significant aspect of the labour market in the Nordic countries is that conflict between employers and workers is recognized and institutionalized in a way that makes conflicts solvable and productive, both for the lives of workers and the economy. The foundation for this is, of course, labour market organizations that can act with great legitimacy and powerful resources. One of the things that provides legitimacy and power is members. The Nordic labour market organizations, both trade unions and employers’ associations, have relatively large numbers of members.

Union density is around 70% in the Nordic countries, except for Norway, where it is about 50%. In all large European countries union density is significantly lower: less than 30% in the UK, less than 20% in Germany and less than 10% in France (ETUI, 2017). Union density peaked in the mid-1990s, both in the Nordic countries and in Western Europe, and has declined since then, but quite slowly in the Nordic countries.²

With regard to employers, the level of organization is also high but has been slightly declining over the last ten years in Denmark, where about 52% of private sector employees work in companies that are members of an employers’ association (Navrbjerg & Ibsen, 2017). In the public sector, employers are organized 100%. In Norway the level of organization among employers is stable at about 68% (Nergaard, 2016).³

Another expression of the legitimacy and power of the labour market organizations is found in the proportion of employees covered by collective agreements that determine wages and working conditions. In Denmark, about 75% of the private sector employees are covered by collective agreements, and in the public sector 100% are covered (Navrbjerg & Ibsen, 2017). Similar figures for Norway are 57% in the private sector and 100% in the public sector (Nergaard, 2016).

Union density is gradually decreasing, while the organization rate among employers is more stable. However, this does not necessarily mean that the power of labour market organizations is diminishing. The power of organizations depends largely on the institutional framework for the exercise of power and the opportunities and resources of the parties to take advantage of the institutions.

It is characteristic of the Nordic countries that the relationship between the social parties takes place in many partially connected arenas. Many actors are involved, and many resources can be mobilized. It is thus typical of the Nordic countries that conflicts and cooperation between the social parties take place at all levels of society (Madsen et al., 2001; Kjellberg...