Getting rid of the remaining male cigar makers

The Tobacco Monopoly did not consistently rank men before women, as employers typically do, according to Reskin and Roos. On the contrary, local factory mangers had wanted to reduce the male workforce ever since the beginning of mechanization.²⁶ Demand for the more expensive cigars manufactured by men had decreased and some of the brands could be manufactured by machines with good results. To transfer male workers to cheaper brands would be both “unsatisfactory and uneconomical”.²⁷ If not compensated for the income loss, transfers would result in unhappy male workers and if they were allowed to keep their higher piece-rates, production would obviously be irrational as women would have done the same job for less pay. By August 1926, the point had been reached when the management openly questioned whether men were needed in cigar production, except for as mechanical workers.²⁸ At this time, 115 male cigar makers remained; 88 were employed in Malmö, where there still was some manual production of cigars.

24 ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 3 October 1924; ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 6 November 1924.

25 ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 2 March 1926.

26 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 17 September 1923, Bilaga C, ”P.M. angående cigarrarbetet”.

27 The release of female preparation workers was apparently not as sensitive; it did not require the involvement of the delegation. SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 25 August 1926, Bilaga K.

28 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 25 August 1926, Bilaga K.

However, most of the male workers at that location had been transferred and were employed on tasks that could as well be performed by women. The management wanted to keep 30 male cigar makers and release the rest through early retirement. Obviously, the issue was sensitive and the board postponed the decision.

The matter did not appear again until late December the same year, on the initiative of the local factory managers in Malmö and Stockholm.²⁹ The proposed reduction was somewhat more cautious this time and the managing director asked the board for permission to release about half of the male cigar makers. These were to be temporarily laid off, pending decisions on how to help each worker when releasing them permanently. This move was approved by the board, provided that the affected workers were given compensation of 70 percent of their average incomes while temporarily laid off.

For some reason, the layoffs were delayed about a month.³⁰ All the affected workers were then given written notice with the reason for the layoff and a description of the unemployment support they were going to receive from the company. The notice, which was concluded by urging to the workers to find other employment as soon as possible, gave rise to strong union protests and the management eventually changed its decision.³¹

The news about the personnel reduction is reported to have caused “gloom and bitterness” among the affected.³² The union was harshly critical and made the management aware of the fact that many of those given notice could not get other jobs. It referred to the social responsibility that came with the position of sole employer in the industry; a responsibility that was not lived up to if the male cigar workers were fired on the proclaimed conditions. The union’s primary request was that “[…] the possibility of providing all of the skilled male cigar makers with employment should be examined”.³³ If that was not possible the union proposed that the affected workers should get early retirement amounting to 75 percent of their present incomes. In any case, the union demanded the layoff decision to be cancelled so that a delegation could get the chance to expound the workers’ view.

29 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 21 December 1926.

30 According to Wallenberg the implementation was postponed “out of respect for” the affected workers. SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 7 February 1927.

31 ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 27 January 1927.

32 ARAB, STF, Utgående skrivelser till STM, B05: 1, 4 February 1927.

33 ARAB, STF, Utgående skrivelser till STM, B05: 1, 4 February 1927.

The layoffs came into force as planned on 15 February but, apparently, the union reaction had some impact. After negotiations with union representatives the company board decided to recall 35 of the affected male workers and instead release an equal number of female machine workers.³⁴ The female workers were not laid off but induced to quit. Some problems getting the required number of volunteers were reported from Malmö. The local factory manager declared that if a sufficient number of married female workers did not resign, he would be forced to lay off the wives of male cigar makers. This was, however, not necessary. After the compensation amounts were raised somewhat, the substitution could be achieved.³⁵

The attempt to release male cigar makers put the union solidarity to the test. There were diverging opinions among the union leaders about how to handle the situation. Although the disagreement partly concerned gender it was also a conflict between the executive committee, based in Stockholm, and the Malmö branch of the union, which was most affected by the measures. The episode followed the pattern described by Ross, according to which top-level union officials tend to give priority to the cohesion of the organization whereas local union officials tend to give voice to group interests. The episode was also particularly delicate since some of the involved decision-makers were among those who had been given notice. Personal interests and perceptions about fairness thus collided with strategic considerations about what was best for the union as a whole. The power game within the union during the first months of 1927 is intriguing and deserves a closer look.

When first informed about the personnel reduction, Eliasson tried to get the layoffs cancelled or at least deferred.³⁶ Thereafter, he called attention to the management’s responsibility for the affected workers and demanded negotiations. This was the situation when the issue was first discussed by the union’s executive committee on 29 January. In front of this congregation, Eliasson suggested that the main aim of the union should be to get the layoffs postponed in order to get time for negotiations on the size of the benefits. A negotiation committee consisting of the union functionaries and three representatives of the affected workers should be appointed for that purpose.

34 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 9 April 1927, Bilaga G & H; ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 29 April 1927.

35 Styrelsens protokoll, 26 April 1927.

36 Eliasson was temporarily in charge of the union since Kindstrand was sick at the time. Styrelsens protokoll, 29 January 1927.

One member of the executive committee who reacted to Eliasson's report argued that the male cigar makers were in a particularly vulnerable position and that all possible options should be considered to protect them; including a strike.

Another member of the committee replied that it was “ridiculous” to emphasize the peculiarity of cigar makers in this context. Instead, he reminded that the Tobacco Monopoly had special obligations towards all its workers and referred to previous practice. This is one of the remarkably few incidences of tension, related to the downsizing process, between occupational groups. Of importance for the union’s cohesion in this respect was probably the common repudiation of job bumping. When the idea of transferring male cigar workers to other jobs came up, it was with the proviso that such a measure should not have negative consequences for other workers. This was unrealistic, according to Eliasson.

For him, the focus was clearly on attaining the highest possible benefits for the affected workers. The standard union demand in similar cases had been early retirement with 70 percent of previous incomes, annually. At the meeting a proposal was made for the union to for tactical reasons, put the demand even higher – at 75 or 80 percent – referring to the fact that many of the laid-off workers were breadwinners.

The discussion ended by giving Eliasson approval to pursue his preferred course of action: to postpone the layoffs pending negotiations. One day later, the local branch in Malmö summoned its members for a meeting, where a resolution condemning the reduction was taken.³⁷ Like the executive committee, the Malmö branch wanted the implementation of layoffs to be deferred until the compensation issue had been solved. After a proposition from Erik Eriksson, the chairman of the local branch, the meeting took the position that layoffs could be avoided if married women quit voluntarily in return for certain compensation. If layoffs were necessary, they should take place according to age; beginning from the oldest worker, who was closest to retirement, continuing with the next oldest, and so on. Both these statements came into conflict with the position of the executive committee, which had basically accepted the order of selection.

Overall, the Malmö branch was also unhappy about not being asked to send a representative to the meeting of the executive committee in Stockholm.

At the next meeting of the executive committee, Eriksson was present in Stockholm, along with another representative from the Malmö branch. Since the last gathering Eliasson had been in touch with Ernst Wigforss, a Social Democratic Member of Parliament, who had promised to use his connection

37 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 31 January 1927; Arbetet, 31 January 1927.

with the Minister of Finance, if the Tobacco Monopoly refused to negotiate.³⁸ Eliasson had also been in touch with Holsti to set up meetings with Wallenberg and the company board.

After the initial report from Eliasson, Eriksson informed the committee about the reactions in Malmö. The idea of substituting men for married women got weak support from the executive committee. One objection was that there might well be some married women who would accept a buyout offer, but that it was unrealistic to put male cigar makers on machine work since this was more expensive for the company. A second objection was that the proposal from Malmö was short-sighted; even if the male workers were safe for the moment, it would not take long before their jobs were threatened again. A third objection was that it could hardly be regarded as “voluntary” when married women quit in order to make room for male colleagues. Finally, Eliasson gave some examples to underline the problems associated with the Malmö proposal. In spite of the scepticism, the idea of substituting male cigar makers for women was not completely rejected. Instead, the matter was deferred until later. The other proposal from Malmö, to establish the order of selection according to age, was rejected with less discussion.

Apparently, Eriksson had a strong conviction that the situation could be solved if married women left their jobs. Even without a clear decision from the executive committee regarding the married women, the leadership of the Malmö branch made the local factory management aware of the possibility.³⁹ Eriksson also put forward the idea, without asking the other union delegates, in the negotiations with the representatives of the company board and management.⁴⁰ His move was successful. In the new management proposal that came out of the negotiations, some of the laid-off male workers were to be recalled and given jobs performed by female workers.

As soon as the new proposal was announced, the union board was summoned to an extra meeting; a measure that was only undertaken on extraordinary occasions.⁴¹ At the meeting, Eriksson was castigated for having acted without the consent of the other negotiators and for having a personal

38 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 31 January 1927.

39 Petersson 1999, p 39.

40 The minutes from these negotiations were not accessible for this study. Eriksson’s move is supported by the recorded discussion at a subsequent meeting with the union’s executive committee.

He was present at the meeting and did not deny the accusations that he had acted on his own. ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 2-3 March 1927.

41 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 2-3 March 1927.

agenda in the matter. The union board thereafter decided to make a statement that all members, including married women, should be treated equally by the union.

However, Eriksson's coup during the negotiations was not the only reason why he was told off by the union board in Stockholm. The chairman of the Malmö branch had also been in contact with the Social Democratic politician Carl Lovén in February. This contact led to Lovén submitting a bill to Parliament.⁴² Formally, the bill was about a government proposition on tobacco taxation and demanded higher taxes on imported cigars, but looking at the motivation the bill was clearly a protest against the recent reductions at the Tobacco Monopoly. Lovén argued that state-owned firms should achieve workforce reductions by attrition and early retirement, not by laying off permanent workers. He also protested against the Tobacco Monopoly’s attempts to get rid of male workers. That a husband could be laid off while his wife was retained, in cases where both were employed by the same company, was in Lovén’s eyes “absurd”. He concluded that irrespective of taxes, the state should make sure that redundant tobacco workers got generous compensation by a

“voluntarily agreement” between the company and the union.

Lovén’s bill was not popular among the members of the executive committee for several reasons. First, it had small chances of being passed because of the present composition of Parliament.⁴³ Second, the bill was introduced in a sensitive phase when negotiations on the support for laid-off workers were still going on. Third, the union leadership thought that Lovén had not put much effort into keeping himself informed on the issue and that he had been careless with formulations.

Whether Eriksson actually encouraged Lovén to write the bill is unclear.

Eriksson himself claimed that he had only urged Lovén to inform the leaders of the Social Democrats in Parliament. Still, many of the board members expressed sharp criticism against Eriksson’s actions. Kindstrand even stated that the Malmö branch “[…] disturbs the whole foundation on which our organization is

42 Bihang till riksdagens protokoll 1927, Motioner i första kammaren nr 314.

43 Eventually, the bill was rejected by Parliament without much discussion. Lovén’s concern for the workers was, however, given a certain acknowledgement in the committee work. The committee referred to the instructions given to the state representatives on the company board. Bihang till riksdagens protokoll 1927, Bevillningsutskottets betänkande nr 39; Riksdagens protokoll, Första kammaren nr 2, 27 April 1927; Riksdagens protokoll, Andra kammaren nr 3, 27 April 1927.

built”.⁴⁴ He found it natural that there were different opinions but emphasized the importance for an organization to eventually rally around the leadership. At the board meeting it also became evident that there were tensions within the Malmö branch as the other representative from Malmö present at the meeting witnessed that there had been discussions concerning different options and that he himself had advocated the course of action taken by the executive committee.

The same delegate also argued that Eriksson had given a biased picture of the actions of the union leadership when speaking to the members in Malmö.