Disagreement emerges over export-driven wage model proposal in Finland

A deep disagreement has emerged between employer and employee unions regarding a government-proposed export-driven wage model. The consultation period for the legislative proposal is closing today. As of Tuesday afternoon, over 50 comments had been submitted regarding the proposal. Support for the proposal is coming solely from employer organizations, while employee unions and professional associations are vehemently opposed. The Chancellor of Justice has also criticized the proposal, expressing concerns about its compliance with international treaties binding on Finland and EU law.

The government has drafted legislation that would link general wage increases to agreements made in export sectors. This legislative provision is unprecedented, and employee unions have strongly resisted it, citing it as a reason for the strikes that took place last winter and spring. The export model implies that the National Conciliator cannot propose wage increases for other sectors that exceed those agreed upon in export industries.

Employer organizations widely support the proposal, with some advocating for even stricter measures. For instance, the Forest Industry believes that the general trajectory of wage checks in negotiations should be able to go below established rates.

On the employee side, organizations like Akava and others argue the proposal would weaken workers’ bargaining positions and hinder efforts to reduce gender pay gaps. The proposal contradicts the goals of equality legislation and could infringe upon negotiation autonomy, as mentioned by labor market director Ville Kopra. The Equality Ombudsman has completely rejected the proposal, arguing it not only solidifies current wage disparities but also exacerbates them.

Chancellor Tuomas Pöysti sees potential constitutional issues in the proposal, suggesting it should be reviewed by the Constitutional Law Committee. He believes it could unconditionally impede the freedom of collective agreements, posing unpredictable consequences for Finland’s labor market system.

Among employers, only Municipal and Wellbeing Area Employers KT have sided with workers. They argue that the government’s justification citing the “Swedish model” is inappropriate, given that it has not been developed alongside legislative preparations as in Finland. This criticism extends to the insufficient consultation with stakeholders and experts during the legislative drafting process.

Concerns have also been raised about the timing of the proposal, as negotiations for collective agreements are set for autumn 2024 and spring 2025. Unions anticipate this legislative change could lead to instability and confusion in the labor market, potentially hindering future negotiations.