DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY AND INTERVENTION

The Limits to Solidarity

Unions and the rise of private unemployment insurance in

Johan Bo Davidsson

ProWelfare Conference

Brussels, 5 Dec. 2013 The rise of private unemployment insurance

. There was no private insurance in Sweden in the year 2000.

. Today it covers more than half of the workforce.

How does it work?

. Function: Raises the ceiling in the insurance.

. Administration: Run by unions individually, in co-operation with insurance companies (no state involvement).

. Eligibility: QR for public + QR for private insurance.

. Eligibility: Union membership.

. Coverage: Estimated at around 50 % of workforce (Sjögren Lindquist & Wadensjö 2011; TCO 2013), 40% eligible for the insurance. Table 1 – Union organizations that provide private supplementary unemployment insurance (2012)

LO TCO SACO

Byggnads ST X Naturvet. X

Elektrikerna X Farmaciförbundet X SSR X

Handels X Finansförbundet X Civilekonomerna X

Kommunal X FTF X DIK X

Livs X Försvarsförbundet FSA X

Transport X X Jusek X

SEKO X Journalistförbundet X Kyrkans förbund X

Målarförbundet Lärarförbundet X Leg. sjukgymnaster X

Fastighetsanställda Polisförbundet Lärarnas riksförbund X

GS Facket X X Officersförbundet (X)

IF Metall SLF X Trafik och järnväg X

Musikerförbundet SYMF SRAT X

Svenska pappers Teaterförbundet Sveriges arkitekter X

Hotell & Restaurang Tull-Kust Sveriges farmaceptför. X

Vårdförbundet X Sveriges ingenjörer X

Sveriges läkarförbund X

Sverige psykologförbund X

Sveriges reservofficers förbund ..

Sveriges skolledarförbund X

Sveriges tandläkarförbund (X)

SULF (X)

Sveriges veterinärförbund (X)

Source: TCO 2013. X = supplementary insurance included in union membership; (X)= supplementary insurance is provided by to an add. cost. NRR simulation for Sweden (%)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Cleaner Industry worker Nurse Associate professor Accountant

NRR % (Public) NRR % (Private) Two questions

. 1/ Why is private unemployment insurance on the rise in Sweden? A country well known for its generous welfare state.

. 2/ Why did unions in Sweden, widely considered to be inclusive, not act with solidarity in setting up the private insurances?

1. Why private insurance and why in Sweden?

Back story: declining quality in the public insurance

. The ceiling was de-indexed from wages during the econ. crisis (early 1990s).

. Absolute increases under soc-democratic governments (especially in 2001).

. Absolute cuts since the conservative government took over in 2006.

. RR is 80 per cent, but NRR for AW is now as low as around 50 per cent.

Figure 1 - Unemployment Benefits (NRRs)

1,00

0,90 NRR APW SINGLE - SWEDEN

0,80

0,70 NRR AW SINGLE - SWEDEN

0,60

(%) 0,50

NRR APW SINGLE - EUROPE NRR 0,40

0,30 NRR AW SINGLE - EUROPE 0,20

0,10 Source: Van Vliet & Caminada (2012), Unemployment replacement rates dataset 0,00

Union response: private insurance

. A number of possible reasons: . A political protest. . To protect their members from income loss. . Membership recruitment. . To increase their institutional power.

. But, ideologically difficult for unions.

. However, all unions still support higher ceilings in the public insurance.

2. Why no solidarity?

Two roads not taken

. White-collar unions (TCO, Saco) moved first in 2002 and without attempts to cooperate across confederations.

. Blue-collar unions (LO) dismissed proposals to create a shared supplementary insurance in 2007. Why no solidarity? An historical illustration

. Private insurance organized by unions in the late 19th and early 20th century had low levels of coverage.

. Only skilled and better paid workers were covered. This was true in Britain, as well as in Belgium and Sweden.

. Others could not set up their own insurance because they suffered from higher labour-market risks. That also meant that the unions with lower risk did not want to include them – that would have raised their fees.

. When the state moved in this was the problem they were trying to solve. They did it by creating national insurance (UK), making it compulsory (Belgium) or by increasing fundings to unions with high labour-market risks (Sweden). Negotiations in LO over a shared insurance

. Negotiations began right after the election in 2006.

. Two reports were commissioned: . Common unemployment funds. . Shared supplementary unemployment insurance.

. The most contentious issue was the fees.

Evidence from interviews with LO unions

Negotiations broke down over fees:

. It was the union for public sector workers that was the strongest opponent.

. “It was tuff discussions and they did not result in an agreement because we realized that [a shared solution] would mean a large redistribution of resources from Kommunal’s low-paid female members to the more high- paid male members of other unions … We would have had to raise our own membership fees to secure the funding of the insurance. That would hit directly at members with low incomes or that works part time or on temporary contracts.”

Consequences

Coverage:

. Half of the blue-collar unions do not provide a supplementary unemployment insurance.

. Two unions tried, the unions for construction workers and painters, but had to abandon the insurance when fees were rising too quickly.

Politics (paradox of redistribution):

. Budgets are not fixed, but varies with public support. Future research

Public/private mix:

. Provision of income support: public vs. private.

. Functional equivalents. E.g. redundancy payments, mortgage insurance.

Union strategy:

. The social insurances: a new opportunity for unions?

. Are there examples of solidaristic solutions?