Married and middle-aged women in the loophole

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.

themselves”.⁴⁸ This offer was rejected and the branch wired the union leadership in Stockholm, asking Eliasson to come down to clear up the situation.⁴⁹

In Malmö, Eliasson attended a meeting with the branch board and then a general meeting where all members at the location were invited.⁵⁰ That there were serious frictions is beyond doubt. The chairman of the branch got the blame for the layoffs and the rest of the branch board had considered further cooperation impossible. Bengtsson resigned shortly afterwards and was replaced by Mads Madsen. Thereafter, a meeting with the factory management was arranged where the union representatives asked for avoidance of layoffs by going back to short hours and early retirement of workers older than 51. Levin was not prepared to make any decisions before being in touch with the company headquarters.

His meeting with the managerial body in Stockholm took place on 7 October.⁵¹ This event, which was recorded and attached to the board minutes, provides us with unusual insights into the decision making process of the Tobacco Monopoly. Present at the meeting, apart from Levin, were Wallenberg (managing director), Holsti (technical director), Nordenfeldt (director on duty), and the manager of the two other cigar factories. The proceedings began by Levin informing the group that mechanization and declining demand for cigars had caused shortage of work, of a permanent nature, at the Malmö factory.

Levin described how attempts had been made to avoid permanent layoffs by preparing raw tobacco for stock and temporary layoffs and how the union had been urged to participate in establishing the order of selection. Levin proposed that the reduction should be achieved by temporarily laying off 14 old female workers pending their retirement and permanently laying off 51 married women (of which 18 had husbands who were also employed at the factory). The selection took place without union participation, which was regretted since it was believed that the union had a better knowledge of the family situation of the affected individuals. Instead the selection was made on the basis of information in the factory’s own records.

48 Swedish: ”[…] gallring skall företagas av arbetarna själva”. Observe that this statement is taken from a union source. ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 27 September 1927.

49 The executive committee accepted the invitation with certain hesitation, since the branch so often had failed to follow the decisions of the union leadership. ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 27 September 1927, STF, A02: 5, ARAB. See also Lindbohm & Kuhm 1940, p 271.

50 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 11 October 1927.

51 Note that this was before the managerial body was formalized.

Thereafter, Holsti reasoned around compensation amounts, reminding the participants of previous practice, and suggested that the workforce reduction could be achieved by voluntary quits if the compensation was generous enough.

The factory management should, of course, have the possibility of rejecting applications from individual workers if these were considered “[…] suitable and needed for the production”,⁵² Holsti added. The outcome of the meeting was thus that the factory managers should come up with a detailed proposition about severance pay, which included the possibility of having workers, who were given notice, replaced by volunteers.

A remarkable feature of the meeting of the managerial body was that only two of the participants spoke: the reporting manager, who accounted for the situation and had an idea about how to deal with it, and the technical director who decided the matter. There was no real discussion; Holsti clearly had the final word. It is interesting to note that the managers of the other cigar factories were present at the meeting and assisted in the preparation of the compensation scheme even though reductions were not imminent at their plants. Their presence indicates the company’s ambition to have a consistent personnel policy.

The compensation proposition, which was prepared during the same day, was approved, with some changes suggested by Wallenberg, by the company board on 17 October.⁵³ However, the matter was not solved in this instance without discussion. Some members of the board regarded the benefits as too high and wanted to add to the minutes that the decision had been taken with hesitation.

After the meeting of the company board, the laid off workers were noticed and an offer was sent out about compensation to those who quit voluntarily, as long as it could be done without disturbing the production.⁵⁴ The offered benefit terms caused discussion among the members of the union’s executive committee, leading to the statement that the redundant women should be given the same benefits as the men that had been laid off during the spring.⁵⁵ In the letter to the management, the union leadership referred to the seniority of the

52 Swedish: ”[…] lämpliga och behövliga för driften.” SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 17 October 1927, Bilaga A.

53 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 17 October 1927. In short, Wallenberg lowered the amounts for the temporarily off and raised the upper limit for the duration of the benefits to the permanently laid-off. The compensation amounts are accounted for in greater detail in chapter 10.

54 ARAB, STF, Inkomna skrivelser från Tobaksmonopolet, E03: 2 , 19 October 1927.

55 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 25 October 1927.

noticed workers.⁵⁶ Most of them had been employed in the industry since before nationalization. The proposed measure did not only imply that their lost their jobs but also their occupation. Furthermore, the union leadership argued that married women should have the same benefits as other workers if laid off. Older women could often in practice be breadwinners as their aged husbands had low capacity to work. Married women in all age groups did also face the risk of becoming widows. Marital status should therefore not affect the terms for redundant workers

Eriksson’s actions during the spring the same year had put the union leadership in a difficult position in this respect.⁵⁷ Considering the fact that a union representative had openly declared that job losses were more costly for married men than for married women, the demand for equal treatment was easily rejected by the management. Anyhow, the pressure made Wallenberg to travel to Malmö in order to personally get informed about the situation.⁵⁸ The whole matter ended in a vague promise to make a renewed investigation of the situation for the affected workers.

Again, the union members in Malmö took their own initiatives to save their jobs. The branch formed a special committee to gather information on the procedures and terms offered at all reductions since the founding of the company. This committee also contacted politicians, the idea being to obtain stronger employment security for those who had begun their employment in the industry before nationalization. In contrast to the initiatives taken by the Malmö branch during the spring, Mads Madsen made sure that the executive committee was kept informed. The initiative from Malmö was the subject of lengthy discussions and the meeting was adjourned to the next day.

Eliasson argued that taking such a clear position regarding the employment security of a particular group could lead to internal tensions. Such tensions had already come up in Malmö; the workers on hourly wages – that is, those who had been employed relatively recently – had also been in contact with a member of parliament. Eliasson got support from several other speakers. One of the delegates pointed out that the proposal to obtain guarantees for workers employed before 1914 came into conflict with the union’s declaration to treat all

56 ARAB, STF, Utgående skrivelser, B04: 7, 27 October 1927.

57 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 22 November 1927.

58 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 8 November 1927; ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 22 November 1927. In a talk with Kindstrand, Wallenberg stated that he had met representatives from the local branch. Mads Madsen later denied that such a meeting had taken place.

ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 2 December 1927.

members equally. Another member added that, if successful, the bill would only lead to layoffs of other worker categories.

As they did in the previous debate regarding Lovén’s bill, the union leadership believed that political initiatives could have adverse impacts on the organization’s position in relation to the employer; that is, that the Tobacco Monopoly would be less willing to negotiate when seeing how the workers turned to their political representatives. If the bill was rejected, which was deemed likely, the union and the senior workers could be in a worse position than before since the committee work from 1914 then would be invalid.

Probably, the union’s officials also regarded the actions of the Malmö branch as failing the organization’s, and their own, capacity to deliver results. Both Kindstrand and Eliasson emphasized the union’s strength and that the Tobacco Monopoly had been reasonable on several occasions.

With four votes against two, the executive committee decided to continue the efforts to bring about negotiations with the company regarding the laid off female workers. If that turned out to be impossible, a bill to Parliament would be considered again.

Eventually, the union managed to bring about negotiations with the company, but while the talks were proceeding a new reduction was announced.

This time up to 150 female cigar workers were affected.⁵⁹ Again, the workforce reduction was partly settled by early retirement, but most of the redundant workers were found in the age group 40 to 46.⁶⁰

As in the past when it came to laid-off male workers, the union made an appeal for the redundant female workers referring to their difficulties in the labour market.⁶¹ Considering their age, the prospects of finding jobs within the manufacturing industry were virtually non-existent, it was said. Furthermore, the union referred to the committee work that had preceded the establishment of the Tobacco Monopoly.⁶²

In the first place, the union questioned whether layoffs were at all necessary and advocated hours-reductions. If short hours were not enough to

59 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 19 December 1927.

60 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 19 December 1927, Bilaga C, “P.M. angående understöd, åt avskedade cigarrarbeterskor”.

61 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 16 January 1928.

62 As mentioned, the committee statement from 1914 said that the monopoly had a particular responsibility to provide the workers with employment protection. The union argued that the statement meant that layoffs of old workers were not to be carried out if the company hired young workers at the same time. SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 16 January 1928.

deal with the situation, the union wanted the affected workers recalled and layoffs to proceed according to straight seniority (‘last in, first out’). The third alternative was to raise the compensation amount. In this respect, the union also referred to the parliamentary decision from 1914. Neither of the proposed alternatives was accepted by the company board, which did not even comment upon the possibilities of applying straight seniority.⁶³

The redundant female workers, when informed about this rejection, sent a delegation to meet with Wallenberg and presented the same demands, in the same order of priority as before: (1) hours-reductions, (2) ‘last in, first out’, (3) higher compensation. Wallenberg informed the board but no measures were undertaken.⁶⁴ Still, the initiative is interesting since it represents the first example where female workers were agents in the downsizing process, at least in the material reviewed for this study.⁶⁵ That the female workers formed an own delegation is an indication of their mistrust of the union leadership. This mistrust was clearly expressed at the congress in 1928, where women for the first time made a concerted effort to be heard in the highest authority of the union. The male leadership was accused of not looking after the interest of women.⁶⁶

The debate began with a specific complaint, put forward by Anna Larsson from Stockholm, particularly concerning the female workers that had been laid off at the end of 1927. Another female delegate, Hildur Rubin from Gävle, expressed criticism of a more general nature: “When it comes to men, great apparatuses are set into motion, but when women are laid off nothing is done.

The discontent is also very great among the women. The men should be able to show a little benevolence.”⁶⁷

Apart from the ombudsman Eliasson, the male delegates did not explicitly deny this accusation. Indeed several of them replied that the women had to blame themselves for not having shown enough interest in union activities. One

63 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 16 January 1921, Bilaga B.

64 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 6 February 1928.

65 It is, of course, likely that more evidence of female action would have been found if the study had focused on material from the local branches.

66 It is quite evident that this debate was foreseen, since the correspondence between union leadership and monopoly management concerning the reductions in 1927 had been sent the congress delegates in advance and was reproduced in the congress minutes, which was not common practice.

67 Swedish: ”Då det gäller männen ställas stora apparater i gång men när kvinnorna avskedas blir intet gjort. Missnöjet bland kvinnorna är också mycket stort. Nog borde männen kunna visa någon liten väljvilja.” ARAB, STF, Kongressprotokoll, A01, 1928, p 20.

male representative argued that ”[i]t is not the men’s fault that the women are so little interested and so little represented”,⁶⁸ and another added that women were afraid of the responsibility of positions of trust. A counterargument, put forward by Hildur Rubin, was that women lost their interest in employment conditions since they could not make themselves heard. Here, she mainly had the relationship with the employer’s representatives in mind, as indicated by the following quote: “When we put forward something to the management it is never possible to get any concessions if we do not have a man with us.”⁶⁹

Besides throwing the guilt back to the women, a couple of male delegates argued that the company management was more open to demands regarding men. This was because male workers were easier to transfer to other jobs and because the management’s acceptance of the male-breadwinner norm. Except for this last remark, the congress debate in 1928 mainly concerned men and women, irrespective of civil status. The only delegate at the congress who openly advocated releasing married women before male-breadwinners was Eriksson, the former chairman of the Malmö branch.⁷⁰