There is only one single sentence standing in the way of a new IA agreement.
But the sentence they are arguing about has great significance:
“The government will not propose changes to the sick leave pay scheme during this agreement period, neither for employers nor employees, unless the parties agree to it.”
This is how it stands in the current agreement on an inclusive working life (the IA agreement).
Must be continued
The trade union movement insists that it must be continued. The employers want to change it so that it will be possible to alter the sick leave pay scheme over the next four years.
On Monday, it was expected that there would be a breakdown in negotiations for a new IA agreement.
The parties, the employers and the trade union movement, met at the Ministry of Labour and Inclusion at 9:00 AM, and it was the minister herself, Tonje Brenna, who led the meeting.
Inclusive Working Life (IA)
• The agreement between the state and the parties in the labour market on a more inclusive working life (the IA agreement) aims to reduce absenteeism and decrease dropout from the workforce.
• It was first entered into in 2001 and has been renewed four times. The current agreement is valid from 2019 to 2024. It was extended in 2022 without changes due to the impact of the pandemic on the labour market from 2020 to 2022.
• The goal of the agreement is to reduce absenteeism by 10 percent compared to 2018, as well as to decrease dropout from the workforce. The reality is that absenteeism has markedly increased.
• The agreement applies to all companies in the country, with certain conditions.
• In addition to the state, NHO, LO, KS, Unio, Virke, YS, Spekter, and Akademikerne are parties to the agreement.
Source: NTB
Protection for four years
LO wants a protection of sick pay for four years. The employers’ side offered last week to protect sick pay for 18 months. After that, it is up to the Parliament to decide.
Some predicted that Monday’s meeting would be short, but they used almost the entire working day.
They also agreed to meet again with the Minister of Labour today, Tuesday, at 3:00 PM.
Those following the negotiations believe this shows that the employers are conceding.
Different stance
LO Deputy Leader Steinar Krogstad pointed out after the meeting that it is important that LO has the government and a majority in parliament behind them.
– Have the employers’ side met you halfway regarding full pay during sickness from the first day?
– The employers’ side is clearly stating that they have a different stance than us, Krogstad replied on Monday.
After the meeting, Krogstad responded to questions about whether the employers have changed their stance on protecting sick pay for 18 months:
– I would say no. But we have agreed to meet tomorrow, Krogstad responded after yesterday’s meeting, Monday.
Why is there a full fight over sick pay now?
How might changes to the sick leave pay scheme impact employees and employers in the labor market?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Labor Market Expert
Time.news Editor (T.E.): Welcome to Time.news! Today, we are joined by Dr. Bjørn Lunde, a labor market expert, to discuss the ongoing negotiations around the Inclusive Working Life (IA) agreement in Norway. Thank you for being here, Dr. Lunde.
Dr. Bjørn Lunde (B.L.): Thank you for having me! It’s a vital topic that impacts so many lives in Norway.
T.E.: Absolutely. To start, can you explain the current contention over the IA agreement? What is this key sentence that has everyone divided?
B.L.: Certainly! The heart of the debate centers around a specific clause stating, “The government will not propose changes to the sick leave pay scheme during this agreement period, neither for employers nor employees, unless the parties agree to it.” This sentence is significant because it essentially locks in the current sick leave policy, preventing any government interference unless both sides agree.
T.E.: It sounds like this sentence could have major implications for the labor market. Why are trade unions so adamant about maintaining this clause?
B.L.: The trade unions view the clause as essential to protecting workers’ rights. By ensuring that any changes to sick leave policy can only be made by mutual agreement, they aim to safeguard employees from potentially unfavorable adjustments that could arise from broader economic pressures or employer negotiations.
T.E.: And what about the employers? Why do they want to change this aspect of the agreement?
B.L.: Employers argue that the current sick leave pay scheme is inflexible and no longer reflects the realities of the labor market. They are advocating for revisions that would allow them to adjust sick leave benefits based on economic conditions or operational needs over the next four years. They believe this flexibility is crucial for managing workforce dynamics and costs effectively.
T.E.: It’s a classic tug of war between stability for employees and flexibility for employers. The negotiations were tense enough that a breakdown was anticipated recently. What does this tension mean for the overall workforce?
B.L.: If negotiations collapse, it could lead to uncertainty for both workers and employers. With absenteeism already on the rise—contrary to the agreement’s goals of reducing it by 10 percent—it might exacerbate the problem. Unresolved, this could lead to a deterioration of trust between the parties, affecting labor relations across the board.
T.E.: Given that the IA agreement has been in place since 2001 and was extended due to the pandemic, how has the current situation changed since its inception?
B.L.: Initially, the IA agreement aimed to create an inclusive work culture that mitigated dropout rates in the workforce. Sadly, the reality has been an increase in absenteeism since 2018, highlighting a disconnect between the intended goals and the outcomes. Some argue that the pandemic further complicated these dynamics by shifting work practices and employee expectations.
T.E.: So, the current negotiations not only affect sick leave but also reflect larger trends in the labor market overall. What can we expect if the parties reach a resolution?
B.L.: A successful resolution would ideally bring a renewed focus on both employee welfare and employer flexibility. It could pave the way for updated policies that reflect today’s workforce needs and challenges. Conversely, failure to agree may lead to more pronounced absenteeism rates and a lack of engagement, which could hinder economic recovery efforts post-pandemic.
T.E.: Those are significant implications indeed. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you would like to add regarding the IA agreement and its future?
B.L.: I think it’s essential for both sides to prioritize cooperation. The health of Norway’s labor market relies heavily on shared interests and mutual understanding—balancing the need for inclusivity with the flexibility that modern businesses require. It’s an ongoing challenge, and I hope the negotiations reflect this critical need.
T.E.: Thank you, Dr. Lunde, for shedding light on this complex issue. It’s a fascinating time for the labor market, and we’ll be watching closely to see how these negotiations unfold.
B.L.: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing positive steps taken for a more inclusive working life.