Why strike for what you already have?

For the first time ever, strikes are now threatening the IT sector. Well, not the entire IT sector, of course; those affected are the mere 25% of Sweden's IT companies that have collective agreements. Which is interesting in itself - it should be companies without collective agreements that have the greatest risk of conflict (sic!).

For the IT industry, this year's collective bargaining has come down to one issue - Unionen and the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers' demand to introduce a system of so-called compulsory collective Flexpension, i.e. extra provisions for pension combined with the right to retire part-time. As you have probably noticed, IT&Telekomföretagen, like the other unions within Almega, has said no to this. The explanation is simple: the proposal goes completely against our long-term principles of individual wage setting, rewarding competence and performance, increasing wage dispersion and thereby making collective agreements more attractive. What we want to see is an individually based FlexPension model, where the individual has the right to choose - salary or extra pension.

The members of Unionen and Sveriges Ingenjörer are now planning to go on strike to bring about a compulsory collective Flexpension. To me, this is a completely incomprehensible position. Does a collective solution really benefit the civil servants - and women - who are members of these unions? What does it really mean for the members of the Swedish Society of Engineers, for example: well-paid and well-educated civil engineers? Usually numerate ones, too.

Many things are hard to understand in this, but three things are particularly difficult for me to put together.

Firstly, a majority of employees in the IT sector can already choose to set aside more of their salary for their pension through salary swaps. Many companies also compensate the individual for the salary deduction so that the pension is calculated on gross rather than net salary. If a collective compulsory solution is introduced, these models will most likely be removed. Does this benefit members?

Secondly, the collective compulsory provision for Flexpension is taken from the wage space, which inevitably results in a smaller cake to distribute between individuals. This in turn means that wage dispersion, i.e. the difference between individuals' wages, is reduced. Highly educated and high performers will then not be able to get the pay rise based on skills and performance that they - and we - believe they deserve. Does this benefit members?

Thirdly: When the total wage space decreases, there is less in the wage envelope for everyone, regardless of what the individual prioritizes in life. We believe that individuals should instead be allowed to choose for themselves - salary or extra pension. Unlike Unionen and Sveriges Ingenjörer, we are convinced that employees are both willing and able to make this individual choice. The possibility of extra pension provision is currently part of a benefits package that can include, for example, the choice of extra insurance, possible car benefit, etc. Does it benefit members to limit their own choice?

Life is different for all of us. And we don't all want the same things. For some, the idea of retirement and financial security for life after work is central. For others, the ability to pay off their mortgage, or to afford a week in the mountains with the kids, is more of a priority. For most people, individual preferences also change over time. A modern labor market takes this into account.

In the IT sector, only 25% of companies and 52% of all employees are covered by collectively agreed pensions. Among the rest, all types of pension schemes are represented. Companies are used to managing and offering individual solutions. They currently see no reason to join collective agreements that restrict their ability to meet employees' individual wishes on how to reward performance and skills. If the proposal for a collective and mandatory Flexpension goes through, it will make collective agreements even less attractive.

Again, how does this benefit the members of the Union and Swedish Engineers?