Since maternity and paternity leave are frequently more than 6 months long, employees temporarily leaving for a big chunk of the year is just a fact of doing business here.
Granting unpaid leave to go try your own thing for a while is, from the employer's perspective, not any different. Some people never come back, most people do. The same is true for parental leave (many quit their jobs towards the end of their leave, if they had already been thinking about it).
Even when they aren't required to grant it, larger Swedish companies will often give you unpaid leave if you just ask. The fear is that otherwise you will quit. Hiring is hard here, so it's better to have a promise of someone coming back in 6 months than a job opening that can take 12 months to fill.
Sweden has an enormous market of consultancies compared to the U.S. for filling these temporary gaps. Obviously consultants are expensive and not trained on your projects, so it's not the same as a long-time employee, but it gives options to "control the bleeding."
> The fear is that otherwise you will quit. Hiring is hard here, so it's better to have a promise of someone coming back in 6 months than a job opening that can take 12 months to fill.
This is what a strong economy actually looks like.
It's hard (in my experience) to get Americans to understand this, because our economy here has been so bad for so long, most people here have never experienced anything like this.
I think it depends on the company too. For tech companies especially in Stockholm and Malmö, It's really easy to hire developers. If it's a startup good luck getting unpaid leave during huge rushes as well as during industrisemester. So of course as always it depends.
However the thing I think that is more unique to Sweden and drives these kind of nice benefits is that it's really hard to get rid of an employee. Employees are protected so much with rules and regulations that even if you get let go you have a required three month grace period unless otherwise negotiated with the employee.
It's not uncommon I would say to see tech workers "fired" but then still on the payroll for an extra 2 months while they are arbetsbefriad (paid leave)
I'm an anonymous coward on here so I can give another perspective.
My employer struggles to find skilled people and when one guy on my team suddenly disappeared for 6 months it was definitely felt.
Before that I hadn't really grasped the idea yet. Even though I've lived in Sweden since I was a child. I just couldn't accept that you can duck out of your job for several months and then come back as if nothing happened.
I saw it as a sort of betrayal of your co-workers and duties.
And when your employer is already struggling, quietly, to find competent personnel, it really felt like a kick in the gut to lose one of the most competent resources in that team.
Of course that person came back and has always performed at a decent level.
Now I'm older and more mature, I have my own company, so I'm much more accepting of the privilege to take a break from my employer to develop my own business.
Unfortunately, and the article states this, there is an issue being in direct competition with your employer. Mine is a consultancy firm which means they do almost anything. They can purchase a solution from someone and re-sell it as their own. So it's very hard for me to start an IT business that does not compete with them.
It's a sword of damocles dangling over me right now, because I haven't revealed to my manager what I'm doing in my own free time yet. All I know for sure is that I haven't signed any contract preventing me from running my own business and there is a clause in the collective bargaining contract that states that I can't use any company resources, which is obvious.
Actually you might be in trouble and the longer you keep it secret the more trouble you will be in.
In Sweden you have a duty to be loyal to your employer, which means you are not allowed to plan and/or start a competing business during your employment. Your employer can sue you for violating your loyalty to your employer.
However this also means that you have to be able to define what your employers area of business is. Either you don't know it or they don't have one. Get their area of business defined.
If you are in IT in Sweden you might want legal advice to check this out. Anything that you build outside of work might be owned by your employer by default.
Meanwhile, in the US and Canada, you are forced to sign clauses that gives your employer full ownership of anything you invent ever while employed and you have to ask your ~parents~ employer if you could please do something else on the side. Good for Sweden, these feodal rules are dragging everyone down.
When I first learned about this type of contract I couldn’t even believe the concept. How can anybody think it’s ok that a company can claim and kind of ownership over things an employee does in his free time? I have signed up for 40 hours a week and not for being fully owned by the company.
What happens if you work another job and invent things there? Do the companies own each other’s stuff?
Actually in Sweden you have this also. Most people just have it removed from the contract. In the US it is the same. or you get a version that instead just says they own anything done during company time or using employer resources.
This is a great idea, honestly, for the economy at large. If more people start more companies, we're probably all better off even if they don't all survive.
If an American political party were TRULY pro-business and pro-entrepreneur, they'd get behind policies like this. They'd also support divorcing health care from employment, because holy COW how many folks would start a new venture IF ONLY they could afford private market insurance?
Milton Friedman was also a staunch supporter of social safety nets as well as free markets. Anyone that supports free markets and Friedman’s ideas should try to understand why he supported them together ardently. I consider myself both a supporter of actually free markets along with very generous safety nets for the non-winners of such an aggressive business climate. Otherwise, we quickly approach a literal meat grinder of humans and loss of human potential is unfortunate no matter what the economic system.
The fact neither political party is for divorcing healthcare from employment goes to show how corrupted they are by the industry. This is such a slam dunk no brainer for improving not on the health care industry, but the quality of everyone's lives, the only reasonable explanation is corruption.
>If more people start more companies, we're probably all better off even if they don't all survive.
Not if the policy causes more inefficiencies itself. If people can, at will, take 6 months off, then all companies need to plan for more redundancy. This is obviously inefficient. So it ends up being a question of whether the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Considering that Sweden isn't exactly topping the charts in economic growth or wealth or GDP per capita or disposable income, I'm not sure whether this system is good in the long run.
>For the last two decades, full-time workers with permanent jobs have had the right to take a six-month leave of absence to launch a company (or alternatively, to study or to look after a relative).
These are unpaid leaves, right?
I think it's a great idea, particularly for a business of a certain size. I know many of my peers leave their jobs because they are looking for an extended break. If they didn't have to leave, it could be a win for both employees and employers.
In Belgium we have a "career break". 6 months, only condition is to be employed in the company for one year if I recall correctly. Employer can not refuse.
You also get paid basic allocations similar to unemployment, unlike this system.
What's wrong with the threat of starvation and homelessness as a motivator for innovation? Real innovators don't sleep, never take a day off, and work 26 hours a day. In America we know how to motivate people: threaten their livelihood by having virtually no safety net, no holidays, no health insurance, and no hope to go along with all of that. That's what drives real innovators, unlike these wussy European ones who can't even start a business without assurance that they'll have a job to go back to if it fails. Unnecessary crutches. We don't even have assurance a doctor will save your life if you get hit by a car on your way to work and they want reassurances about their job. Clearly their system is inferior. Our innovators work through pain. Repetitive stress injuries from typing and psychotic episodes from lack of sleep only make them stronger. This is what it takes to be number one in surveillance, ads, killing, and other shit no decent person wants to excel in. </s>
Overall I think it's a good thing, but one problem is that systems like these are really starting to create two tiers of workers, as is discussed in the end of the article. Generally one has to have a permanent contract for programs like these (e.g. in Finland you can go to study for two years and get paid a nice fraction of your pay from the unemployment fund).
In theory this shouldn't be much of a problem because all jobs should be on permanent basis by default and fixed-term contracts should be only for very special purposes. In practice this is not enforced and especially for lower paying jobs (and some even higher educated fields, such as teachers or nurses) its quite common not to get permanent contracts at all.
Because of this, there's almost a new social class of permanent contract workers who have great benefits and programs, and beneath them a constantly growing underclass on temp contracts, shitty working conditions and little benefits. It's sort of absurd that some paper pusher can get paid for doing any studies they wish more than a cleaner or store clerk gets paid while working.
The systems were largely created before the neoliberal era started in Nordic countries in the 90's or so when employer protection was very strong across the board. But as the protection has crumbled for the "underclass", the system starts to at times look something like the olden privileges of the higher castes.
I think so too, I would love to have entrepreneur leave. Having quite my job to start a business before, the main thought in my head is that 6 months is not anywhere near long enough for the vast majority of business ideas to get off the ground, let alone succeed. In order to have any chance of success in 6 months, you would need to have launched your product before starting the 6 month period. You’d want to have secured financing, get any partners and/or employees in place, finish all legal paperwork, set up a payment system, build the product and begin marketing, all before you leave your day job. Any one of those things can easily eat more than 6 months. My startup was a 2 person software service -- just about the easiest thing you can do business wise -- and it took a year after quitting my job before we could even take money, and 2 years before we made enough money to pay our operational costs.
Well, the biggest argument against it will be a need to find and train a temporary replacement for the person. For many positions finding and training alone may take longer than that.
And then what do you do with the replacement once the original guy is back?
Overall though, I would agree that benefits overweight potential problems.
Even assuming there's a de minimis exemption for small businesses, one unintended consequence could be increasing employment costs which would negatively effect business formation by disproportionately favoring established entities that could afford the luxury.
I wonder how such a policy isn't abused. Do you need to provide some kind of proof for your entrepreneurship? What's to stop me from just taking the occasional 6-month sabbatical to start a travel blog and travel the world? I'd love to be able to save up for 6 months of leave knowing I have a guaranteed job to come back to.
Also, what sort of employer benefits are provided during these periods? I'm assuming Sweden has socialized medicine so employers aren't on the hook, but that'd be a major reason why it couldn't work in the US.
I remember some big tech company had sabaticals available for everyone, but cancelled it because most people were just using them to train for a different job, so quit straight after.
mrmekon|7 years ago
Granting unpaid leave to go try your own thing for a while is, from the employer's perspective, not any different. Some people never come back, most people do. The same is true for parental leave (many quit their jobs towards the end of their leave, if they had already been thinking about it).
Even when they aren't required to grant it, larger Swedish companies will often give you unpaid leave if you just ask. The fear is that otherwise you will quit. Hiring is hard here, so it's better to have a promise of someone coming back in 6 months than a job opening that can take 12 months to fill.
Sweden has an enormous market of consultancies compared to the U.S. for filling these temporary gaps. Obviously consultants are expensive and not trained on your projects, so it's not the same as a long-time employee, but it gives options to "control the bleeding."
maxsilver|7 years ago
This is what a strong economy actually looks like.
It's hard (in my experience) to get Americans to understand this, because our economy here has been so bad for so long, most people here have never experienced anything like this.
CorvusCrypto|7 years ago
However the thing I think that is more unique to Sweden and drives these kind of nice benefits is that it's really hard to get rid of an employee. Employees are protected so much with rules and regulations that even if you get let go you have a required three month grace period unless otherwise negotiated with the employee.
It's not uncommon I would say to see tech workers "fired" but then still on the payroll for an extra 2 months while they are arbetsbefriad (paid leave)
Pretty nice if you know how to game the system
zmodem|7 years ago
INTPenis|7 years ago
My employer struggles to find skilled people and when one guy on my team suddenly disappeared for 6 months it was definitely felt.
Before that I hadn't really grasped the idea yet. Even though I've lived in Sweden since I was a child. I just couldn't accept that you can duck out of your job for several months and then come back as if nothing happened.
I saw it as a sort of betrayal of your co-workers and duties.
And when your employer is already struggling, quietly, to find competent personnel, it really felt like a kick in the gut to lose one of the most competent resources in that team.
Of course that person came back and has always performed at a decent level.
Now I'm older and more mature, I have my own company, so I'm much more accepting of the privilege to take a break from my employer to develop my own business.
Unfortunately, and the article states this, there is an issue being in direct competition with your employer. Mine is a consultancy firm which means they do almost anything. They can purchase a solution from someone and re-sell it as their own. So it's very hard for me to start an IT business that does not compete with them.
It's a sword of damocles dangling over me right now, because I haven't revealed to my manager what I'm doing in my own free time yet. All I know for sure is that I haven't signed any contract preventing me from running my own business and there is a clause in the collective bargaining contract that states that I can't use any company resources, which is obvious.
JoelTheSuperior|7 years ago
khjo|7 years ago
In Sweden you have a duty to be loyal to your employer, which means you are not allowed to plan and/or start a competing business during your employment. Your employer can sue you for violating your loyalty to your employer.
However this also means that you have to be able to define what your employers area of business is. Either you don't know it or they don't have one. Get their area of business defined.
timc3|7 years ago
Kiro|7 years ago
adetrest|7 years ago
maxxxxx|7 years ago
What happens if you work another job and invent things there? Do the companies own each other’s stuff?
Kiro|7 years ago
What does this mean?
JTbane|7 years ago
However I did sign a forced arbitration clause which is equally BS.
CorvusCrypto|7 years ago
kansface|7 years ago
2019ideas|7 years ago
You know, you don't have to sign those.
I always cross out those and tell them to send it back when its fixed. Only my first job I was afraid to do this.
ubermonkey|7 years ago
If an American political party were TRULY pro-business and pro-entrepreneur, they'd get behind policies like this. They'd also support divorcing health care from employment, because holy COW how many folks would start a new venture IF ONLY they could afford private market insurance?
devonkim|7 years ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
merpnderp|7 years ago
Mirioron|7 years ago
Not if the policy causes more inefficiencies itself. If people can, at will, take 6 months off, then all companies need to plan for more redundancy. This is obviously inefficient. So it ends up being a question of whether the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Considering that Sweden isn't exactly topping the charts in economic growth or wealth or GDP per capita or disposable income, I'm not sure whether this system is good in the long run.
refurb|7 years ago
Probably not many? The US seems to dominate in start up compared to Canada or Europe (free healthcare).
dhh2106|7 years ago
These are unpaid leaves, right?
I think it's a great idea, particularly for a business of a certain size. I know many of my peers leave their jobs because they are looking for an extended break. If they didn't have to leave, it could be a win for both employees and employers.
petercooper|7 years ago
Yes.
AltruisticGap|7 years ago
You also get paid basic allocations similar to unemployment, unlike this system.
You only get it once though.
mnm1|7 years ago
52-6F-62|7 years ago
jampekka|7 years ago
In theory this shouldn't be much of a problem because all jobs should be on permanent basis by default and fixed-term contracts should be only for very special purposes. In practice this is not enforced and especially for lower paying jobs (and some even higher educated fields, such as teachers or nurses) its quite common not to get permanent contracts at all.
Because of this, there's almost a new social class of permanent contract workers who have great benefits and programs, and beneath them a constantly growing underclass on temp contracts, shitty working conditions and little benefits. It's sort of absurd that some paper pusher can get paid for doing any studies they wish more than a cleaner or store clerk gets paid while working.
The systems were largely created before the neoliberal era started in Nordic countries in the 90's or so when employer protection was very strong across the board. But as the protection has crumbled for the "underclass", the system starts to at times look something like the olden privileges of the higher castes.
dahart|7 years ago
AlexTWithBeard|7 years ago
And then what do you do with the replacement once the original guy is back?
Overall though, I would agree that benefits overweight potential problems.
piker|7 years ago
TheBeardKing|7 years ago
Also, what sort of employer benefits are provided during these periods? I'm assuming Sweden has socialized medicine so employers aren't on the hook, but that'd be a major reason why it couldn't work in the US.
rb808|7 years ago
alltakendamned|7 years ago
moogly|7 years ago