Swedish unions and obligatory complementary income insurance: Securing unemployment benefits in a changing welfare state

Abstract

AbstractUntil the 2000s, the Ghent system of state‐supported, union‐run funds contributed to high union density in Sweden. However, there has been a remodelling of the Ghent system and a gradual erosion of public unemployment insurance. In this new institutional and less universal context, unions have introduced the private complement known as obligatory complementary income insurance (OCII). This article seeks answers to how Swedish unions have thought and argued on OCII, how these thoughts and arguments change over time and whether there are differences across unions within different confederations. The material includes congressional minutes and other internal documents as well as newspapers and union magazines, 2000–2020. There is a myriad of arguments for and against OCII. Many unions highlight the eroded public unemployment insurance—arguably a threat both to individuals and collectives—as the prime trigger of OCII. Yet, for unions with high rates of unemployment and relatively high wages, the OCII premium may be too expensive. Further, some unions argue that high‐wage members are subsidised by low‐wage members. We also find that OCII enhances sharp competition between unions to keep and recruit new members. The material also reveals different union opinions on how OCII is affecting the future of the welfare model.