Search

Ratio Working Paper No. 339: Broken commitments and unfulfilled expectations: An explorative study of Swedish Labor Court cases

PublicationWorking paper
Durkheim, implicit duties and norms, Industrial relations, Labor Court decisions, Linda Weidenstedt, Lotta Stern, psychological contracts, text analysis
Ratio Working Paper No. 339
Download

Abstract

Little is known about what lies behind serious relational conflicts in the workplace. In this paper, we analyze conflicts emanating from perceptions of broken commitments and unfulfilled expectations as they appear in the Swedish Labor Court. Sweden is a highly regulated and formalized labor market, with high levels of unionization and collective agreement coverage. Yet in a social setting ripe with formal rules and regulation such as this, what role do informal promises and expectations have? The empirical material for this study consists of a sub-set of two years of Labor Court decisions dealing with situations where mutual consent of what has been agreed upon or what is to be expected from each other has broken down. We describe who, when and what causes workplace conflicts and provide examples of typical situations where relations break down to such an extent that the cases are taken to court. The results show some variation between employers and employees, men and women, as well as insiders and outsiders of the Swedish labor market model. Our exploration into court cases in a highly regulated and formalized labor market suggests that regardless of the amount of regulations, people build relationships that go beyond formal rules. And when they interpret and judge their social relations, they will sometimes do so differently – and sometimes the differences will cause severe conflicts. Even in Sweden.

Stern, C. & Weidenstedt, L. (2020). Broken commitments and unfulfilled expectations: An explorative study of Swedish Labor Court cases. Ratio Working Paper No 339. Stockholm: Ratio.


Similar content

Working from home during lockdown: the association between rest breaks and well-being
Article (with peer review)Publication
L., Leick, B., & Sütterlin, S. (2022).
Publication year

2022

Published in

Ergonomics, 1-11.

Abstract

One of the challenges with working from home (WFH) is the question of its effect on health and well-being. The impact of home working on health has so far not been studied extensively. We address this gap by investigating the association between internal recovery, operationalised as rest break frequency (low, medium, and high) during the working day, on self-reported musculoskeletal pain, and post-work recovery symptoms in WFH knowledge workers (n = 382). The analysis showed that failing to take frequent breaks was associated with a dose-response increased risk of reporting headaches. For post-work recovery symptoms, failing to take rest breaks throughout the day was associated with an increased risk of reporting psychological fatigue, physical fatigue, and sleep problems, and a decreased risk of psychologically detaching from work and experiencing adequate rest. Our findings emphasise the importance of remote workers taking recovery breaks from work demands in the maintenance of health and well-being.

Managers on balancing employment protection and what’s good for the company: Intended and unintended consequences of a semi-coercive institution
Article (with peer review)Publication
Stern, C., & Weidenstedt, L.
Publication year

2022

Published in

Economic and Industrial Democracy.

Abstract

Sweden’s institutionalized employment protection legislation, ‘LAS’, is interesting theoretically because parts of it are semi-coercive. The semi-coerciveness makes it possible for firms and unions under collective agreements to negotiate departures from the law. Thus, the law is more flexible than the legal text suggests. The present study explores intended and unintended consequences of LAS as experienced by managers of smaller manufacturing companies. The results suggest that managers support the idea of employment protection in principle but face a difficult balancing act in dealing with LAS. From their point of view, the legislation’s institutional legitimacy is low, producing local cultures of hypocrisy and pretense. The article gives insights into how institutions aimed at specific, intended behavior sometimes end up producing unintended consequences fostering the opposite.

The article in total can be read here.

Sex differences and occupational choice. Theorizing for policy informed by behavioral science.
Article (with peer review)Publication
Stern, C., & Madison, G.
Publication year

2022

Published in

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 202, 694-702.

Abstract

Occupations are segregated with respect to sex, even in modern, egalitarian societies. There are strong pressures to eliminate segregation and therefore strong reasons to correctly theorize why segregation persists. The dominant view underpinning most public policies is essentially that environmental factors nudge women and men into different occupational paths. Nudging, however, ignores research suggesting that psychological traits that influence occupational choice differs between women and men, on average.

Some of the most well-documented and persistent average sex differences between men and women suggest that the taken-for-granted assumption that an egalitarian society would exhibit a more or less equal distribution of men and women across the occupational landscape may be mistaken. Rather, models of occupational choice informed by individual differences in preferences, broadly understood, would help us better explain how men and women behave in the labor market. Differences in occupational preferences will affect choices. Therefore, differences in proportions of women and men across professions may be in line with an egalitarian society and the well-being and best interest of both men and women in society.

The article can be read here.

Show more

Ratio is an independent research institute that researches how the conditions of entrepreneurship can be developed and improved.

Sveavägen 59 4trp

Box 3203

103 64 Stockholm

Bankgiro: 512-6578