The personnel reserve

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

a demoralization of the workforce. “It is even cheaper for a firm to retire superfluous people with full wage than to keep them in work”, Wallenberg pointed out.⁷² He mentioned that the company, so far, had tried several ways to deal with redundancies: temporary layoffs, permanent layoffs, buyouts, retraining courses, early retirements and pensions.⁷³ Since he felt that these solutions were more or less exhausted, he proposed another measure: the creation of a personnel reserve.⁷⁴

Wallenberg’s idea, which was inspired by a similar system used in the armed forces, was to offer redundant workers benefits in return for the obligation to join up for service if needed.⁷⁵ No principal objections were raised by the board and the management was commissioned to prepare a more detailed proposal. The discussion was lengthier when such a proposal reached the board in June 1929.⁷⁶ The board finally decided to approve the new system for dealing with redundancies, but the vice chairman, Alexis Hammarström,⁷⁷ noted for the minutes that although he was fully aware of the necessity for workforce reductions and that the company had special obligations towards its workers, his participation in the decision was hesitant. He thought that the terms, particularly for younger workers, were too generous but hoped that transfers to the personnel reserve would be applied only after other, less costly, alternatives had been considered. A fact that possibly reassured Hammarström in that respect was that all transfers to the personnel reserve had to be approved by the company board.⁷⁸

related fields of research. However, a similar reasoning is found in a working paper from the World Bank, where it is stated that: “[…] the low productivity (effort) of the marginal workers has a negative effect on effort on the inframarginal workers. Removing the underutilized marginal workers could therefore have a positive effect on the morale and hence productivity of the remaining workers.”

Svejnar & Terrell 1991, p 7.

72 Swedish: ”Det är till och med billigare för ett företag att med full lön pensionera överflödigt folk än att behålla dessa i arbete.” SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 20 August 1928, Bilaga C.

73 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 20 August 1928, Bilaga C, ”P. M. rörande ifrågasatt inrättande av en övergångsstat för hos Tobaksmonopolet anställd personal”.

74 The Swedish term used was övergångsstat.

75 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 20 August 1928, Bilaga C, ”P. M. rörande ifrågasatt inrättande av en övergångsstat för hos Tobaksmonopolet anställd personal”.

76 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 27 June 1929.

77 Alexis Hammarström was an official and politician that, amongst others, had been minister in Carl Schwartz’ right-wing government in 1917.

78 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 27 June 1929, Bilaga A.

After approval, the transferred employee’s right to benefits depended on seniority, age and previous incomes.⁷⁹ In return, he or she was obliged to return to service, if the company so demanded. In addition, there was a whole range of specific regulations. The employee was, for example, obliged to annually report other sources of incomes; if a full time job was attained, the employee was released from the system. Furthermore, if a woman married while being in the personnel reserve, her benefits could be lowered or withdrawn.

The personnel reserve was not created with any direct union participation.

The union leadership was first made aware of the institution in December 1930, when a reduction at the cigar factory in Stockholm was announced.⁸⁰ The union board put forward three points of criticism concerning the personnel reserve: (1) that the benefits were too low, (2) that workers in the system could be used as strike-breakers (3) that the withdrawal of support to women who marred was unfair.⁸¹ The first point mainly concerned old workers who, according to the union had small prospects of finding other employment. Regarding the second point the union wanted the obligation to return to service to be invalid during strikes. The union argument concerning the third point was that the rules were inconsistent since women who were already married when entering the personnel reserve could get support. Therefore, the union wanted the whole article to be abolished.

Although all three demands were turned down by the management, the union leadership accepted the personnel reserve. Internally, Eliasson argued that the level of support, particularly for younger workers, was higher than in the previous reductions and that the institution in general could be seen as a response to union demands. An indication of the union endorsement of the personnel reserve was the demand that workers who had been laid off in 1927 and 1928 should be included in the new system.⁸²

Transfers to the personnel reserve became an important way of achieving workforce reductions for many years to come. One such reduction was carried through in the spring of 1931,⁸³ three more followed in 1932 and in 1933 (June

79 Both blue-collars and white-collars could be transferred to the personnel reserve.

80 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 22 December 1930; ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

81 ARAB, STF, Utgående skrivelser till STM, B05: 1, 16 February 1931.

82 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 7-8 April 1931.

83 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 26 January 1931; SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 23 March 1931.

and August).⁸⁴ The transfer to the personnel reserve in August 1933 was the last big workforce reduction made by the Tobacco Monopoly before World War II.⁸⁵ In 1950 the personnel reserve constituted more than 10 percent of the whole workforce.⁸⁶

However, the personnel reserve did not completely replace other ways of achieving workforce reductions. In 1932, a number of workers with reduced eyesight were laid off without obligation to join up for service if needed.⁸⁷The company also continued to occasionally offer workers severance pay for quitting voluntarily. For example, when smoking tobacco production was moved from Stockholm to Arvika and Härnösand in 1932, a number of old female workers quit to make room for younger colleagues with families who were not able to move.⁸⁸ Originally, buyouts were considered as board matters, but from June 1933 the managing director could implement buyouts without asking the board for permission.⁸⁹

1933 was the last year with substantial personnel reductions during the inter-war period, but, before concluding the chapter, there are reasons to look closer at the issue of union participation in layoffs, which was central in the last phase of downsizing.

6.8 ‘The person exchange’

As in 1927, the union leadership was given the opportunity to influence the order of selection when the reduction was announced in December 1930.

Eliasson was informed by Holsti that a preliminary list with the workers to be

84 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 19 September 1932; SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 28 June 1933;

SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 29 August 1933.

85 Considerable workforce reductions were carried through in 1940 and 1941 when around 450 workers were transferred to the personnel reserve. Aktiebolaget Svenska Tobaksmonopolets verksamhet år 1940: Styrelsens förvaltningsberättelse och revisorernas berättelse; Aktiebolaget Svenska Tobaksmonopolets verksamhet år 1941: Styrelsens förvaltningsberättelse och revisorernas berättelse.

86 Årsredovisning och revisionsberättelse för verksamhetsåret 1950, pp 12-13.

87 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 1932 (date missing). The same was done with three female workers in the canteen. SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 23 January 1933.

88 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 21 December 1931; SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 17 October 1932.

89 SM, STM, Styrelsens protokoll, 28 June 1933.

affected had been drawn up. The list consisted of two categories: sick workers who could not or did not wish to be moved to machine work, and older workers, who in principle could be transferred to machine work. This latter group could be the subject of negotiations, as long as the union came up with alternative names in the same age category that could be released instead. The issue, which came to be called ‘the person exchange’ (personutbytet), was tricky for the union leadership for more than one reason. It was not obvious whether the union should participate in this way at all and at what level participation should take place. The principles for establishing the order of selection were less disputed.

At this point in time, there seems to have been a fairly established consensus regarding the principle that jobs should be allocated according to need.

The executive committee discussion about the person exchange was characterized by hesitation.⁹⁰ One committee member wondered if there were no ways to avoid layoffs. Another member reminded the committee of the frictions in 1927. The whole matter was postponed but the hesitation remained at the next meeting.⁹¹ One argument in favour of participation was that the union had better knowledge about the economic situation of the workers. The personnel consultants, who had made the investigations that the preliminary lists were based on, were not trusted. In its extension, this view suggested that the whole matter should be dealt with by the local branch, which also seemed to have been the position of Eliasson. But for the chairman it was not only a matter of the superior knowledge possessed by the branch.

Eliasson indicated that, according to his personal belief, married women should be the first to go in the case of shortage of work.⁹² However, as the highest representative of the union he had to deal with the fact that a many of the members were married women, who had the right to equal treatment. Eliasson’s wish to delegate the person exchange to the branch level can thus be seen as a way for him to avoid a troublesome dilemma; where he would have to either forgo his personal sense of justice or jeopardize the organization’s cohesion.

90 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 22 December 1930.

91 ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

92 This was not said straight out, but can be derived from what he said next. Eliasson’s reasoning is therefore reproduced, word for word, as it appear in the minutes in Swedish: ”Sin ställning till de gifta kvinnornas arbete utom hemmet har han tidigare deklarerat. Dock blir det svårt för vårt förbunds vidkommande då dessa även med all rätt medlemmar och i följd därav anser sig som medlemmar och i följd därav anser sig ha rätt till skydd från förbundets sida. Det vore därför bäst att avdelningarna fick behandla denna fråga och själva fatta sina beslut.” ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

Later the same day, a joint-meeting of the executive committee and the affected branch board was held. Yngve Starrin, the branch chairman, argued for participation in the person exchange, “[…] since we then would have opportunities to protect those who are in the most difficult economic situation, the self-supporting women”.⁹³ As shown by his statement, the male-breadwinner norm was not only of importance when having to choose between men and women but also when reductions only affected female workers.

Starrin got support from a member of the executive committee who stated

“[…] there are evidently those who are not directly dependent on their work […]

who due to their economic position could leave room for others.”⁹⁴ That he had married women in mind is clear from his statements in the meeting with the executive committee, where he pointed out that “[…] there were quite a few women among the married who kept their job even though they did not have to.”⁹⁵

Other delegates at the joint-meeting were opposed to union participation in the person exchange, and emphasized the dividing consequences of such a move. This view was expressed clearly by a member of the branch board: “[…]

it will be a difficult position for an organization if, instead of protecting its members, it has to assist in choosing those who are to be laid off.”⁹⁶ Another local representative doubted the value of this kind of participation and argued that it was more important to criticize the actual causes of the reductions and make sure that workers can be transferred to other jobs within the company.

Two compromise proposals also emerged. One was that the union should not actively participate in selecting workers, but could act as an intermediary if workers wanted to quit voluntarily in order to save the job of comrades. The other compromise proposal was that the union should formally abstain from

93 Swedish: ”[…] emedan vi då skulle ha möjligheter att i någon mån skydda dem, som ha det svårast i ekonomiskt avseende, de självförsörjande kvinnorna.” ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

94 Swedish: ”[…] det bevisligen finns de som ej äro direkt beroende av sitt arbete […] som på grund av sin ekonomiska ställning kunde lämna plats åt andra”. ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

95 Swedish: ”[…] det fanns en hel del kvinnor bland de gifta som uppehåll sin anställning trots de ej behövde detta.” ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

96 Swedish: ”[…] det blir en svår ställning för en organisation då den i stället för att skydda sina medlemmar måste vara behjälplig att utse dem som skall avskedas.” ARAB, STF, Styrelsens protokoll, A02: 5, 29 December 1930.

participation but informally contact the personnel consultants and make sure that they got correct information.

Apart from rejecting this latter move, the joint-meeting did not end in a concrete decision, which in itself suggests the sensitive nature of the issue. The union was not invited to participate in the following reductions.