Interview with psychologist Andreas Bergsten

Is there workplace democracy at work?

What do you get if you cross an atheist with a Jehovah’s Witness? Answer: Someone who knocks on the door but has nothing to say! With this little witty story, Andreas Bergsten – psychologist and former employee at Unionen – has described the union’s crisis in a posting in Obs Kulturkvarten (a room for debate in Swedish Radio). He claims that the union today is lost: unsure of who you are and what you believe in.

One October day, two of TAM-Revy’s employees – Leif Jacobsson and Lars-Erik Hansen – decide to visit Andreas Bergsten for a conversation. One of our first impressions on the way there is a man, a dark-skinned newspaper distributor – perhaps originating in Africa – standing at Hötorget’s subway entrance. Standing there shuddering in the stingy wind, he is. It’s an autumnal day. Leaves have marooned and it is a little chilly. A small stone’s throw away from the newspaper distributor we note the place where Olof Palme was murdered. In the place where there was once an abundance of flowers, there is now only one memorial plaque in the dark asphalt.

We finally arrive at the consulting firm Cohr Group’s premises at Sveavägen 32, in Stockholm. One of the group’s employees receives us, straight-backed and nicely dressed. He’s asking us to wait. Andreas Bergsten – dressed in a blue suit and blue and white shirt – is coming soon. He gives a relaxed impression. He shows us into a large, beautifully furnished room. In one corner there is a fireplace. It’s warm and cozy.

Andreas discovers the union

Why did Andreas start to take an interest in trade union issues? He says that the commitment was awakened when he – in his work as an organizational psychologist – discovered that the voice of the employee party was not really heard in the contexts in which he became involved. It could be about conflicts in the workplace and especially work environment problems linked to the so-called burnout – a great concept from the 90s onwards. Many people could no longer cope with their jobs. At the time, he thought that union representatives were often clumsy when it came to taking care of their members. Although the general term referred to a ’human working life’, at the same time there was often a lack of strategy when it came to individual cases. What can the union do more than support those who have already been caught in the doldrums? The union had difficulty tackling the issue in a uniform and clear manner. These observations made him interested in the question of how the union can safeguard and represent the interests of its members.

Andreas consulted with the major central organizations – LO, TCO and Saco – about the possibility of cooperation. Coincidentally, he got in touch with the trade union Sif. He was employed at Sif’s development unit, which was then interested in working with psychosocial issues and with the role of elected representative.

Two lines in Sif

What did Andreas discover in his work at Sif? There were two lines among the ombudsmen, he says frankly. One represented by senior ombudsmen wanted to emphasize the historical value of the union. They highlighted the reforms that the union fought for and got through in the past. The problem with this – says Andreas – is that there is nothing obvious to ”just” return to. Today, the big companies have changed the rules of the game so that decisions are no longer taken within the country’s central level. This shows that it is not possible to just back into the future. It’s good to know what the union has done. But is this what attracts new generations? If the union is a movement with the power to change, perhaps it should instead increasingly give people updated examples of influence that generates member benefit.

The other faction argues that the union needs to innovate – they talk about the union as a ”coach” for individual members’ career development. There’s nothing wrong with that either, he says, but there are things that complicate the strategy. One example is that the services are not always of high quality. Other stakeholders can provide this better. But most importantly, the strategy redefines the role of unions: from a power that is involved in shaping how our working life should shape itself to something that tips and supports individuals.

Andreas has no easy solution to this trade union dilemma. But he believes that one should be more interested in politics and decision-making – what has been the union’s historical mission. The international perspective is important. The union must prove its role in everyday life in a way that can make it strong. Today, trade union membership has become less understandable to many people. But this trend needs to be broken. Otherwise, there is a risk that the unions will no longer be able to attract a majority of the population.

Neoliberal message

Andreas Bergsten has conducted research at KTH and will soon present a doctoral thesis on his studies on Sif (now Unionen). After working with in-depth dialogue seminars for elected officials in Sif, he thinks he can distinguish some ”thought figures” – thought patterns that are not discussed very much but that are latent and governs. One is a kind of individualistic thinking. This is, of course, not overtly neoliberal in the political sense, but still shares the view of society as built around independent individuals who manage their pound and enter into favourable agreements.

Written information to new members was also primarily about what you get out of membership as an individual. It was only in the follow-up letter that information said: ”You’ve probably noticed that there are more of us.”

Another example is that a big drive a few years ago was entirely based on the image of ”the union is your coach”. It had a graphic concept that showed members as individual runners on a running track. They also had promotional material with running mats that the elected representatives would roll out when they had recruitment events at the workplaces. The member was seen in this way as an individual coached by Sif to – on the running track – win over other individuals:

“But it might as well be other members!“ Andreas exults.

Are there factors that facilitate such a neoliberal message gaining a foothold within the white-collar workers movement? Andreas believes that neoliberal thinking may have had a more obvious impact within the white-collar workers movement, which he says has always been a bit divided. Historically, the white-collar workers movement has largely arisen from professional associations that have sought consensus with employers. Only later were they converted into trade unions. But the white-collar workers movement has always been ambivalent in its ideological thinking, never knowing quite where one belongs.

Today, the union’s external activities tend to seem more and more professional – like any other company – but it has become less of a living popular movement. Similarly, people are tormented by not being able to influence their workplace or being involved in deciding on their work situation. Something that really should spark union involvement!

Participation: The Road to Democracy

Andreas has stated that ”We should not have to abandon democracy when we go to work”. Today, companies don’t just pay for a job. It also requires loyalty and identity with the company, he says. Employees are seen as part of a ”sales machine”. But this comes with a price tag. We sometimes talk about ”silence in the workplace”. You are afraid to speak your mind. Journalists have had difficulty finding out things that are not right. The least it should be reasonable to safeguard here is a freedom and rights thinking, Andreas emphasizes.

But you can also be on the offensive and ask yourself: what right to influence do you have in your workplace? When it comes to the discussion about co-influence, Andreas believes that the white-collar workers movement – which has always been non-partisan – could have special conditions. They should be able to show what employee influence can be. In this endeavour, they avoid an awkward discussion about a historical ballast:

As we know full well, no one can say that the white-collar workers movement has always been on a socializing spree or that it has only been dealing constantly with the idea of wage earners’ funds (löntagarfonder), Andreas adds.

Another central ”thought figure” – alongside individualism – that he observed in his research is that of consensus. Trade union representatives tended to always stress that their demands were good for both the employee and employer parties. Of course, there are interests that are common. But the union’s historical role has been to identify conflicts of interest. It is perfectly OK that employers and employees can sometimes have different interests.

What is the disadvantage of the consensus perspective? An important problem with such a figure of thought is that it can prevent marginalized and discriminated groups from joining the union – such as immigrants, women or disabled people. For example, discrimination against immigrants is often seen only as an educational issue: that companies should understand that a multicultural Sweden is good. But in such an approach, the issues of power risk being overlooked, Andreas argues. At the same time, it is about all categories feeling at home in the union – even the ”officials” in general who often do not perceive themselves as belonging to a marginalized group. Therefore, he believes that it is good to highlight what unites – the issues of influence. Here we end the conversation, thank Andreas and leave the elegant office space. We take the stairs down and come back out on Sveavägen – not far from where Olof Palme was murdered. The thoughts of social development fly like bees in my head. Outside, it’s still just as autumn-like. And the newspaper distributor is probably still standing there in the stingy wind.

By Leif Jacobsson

Master of Philosophy in social anthropology and co-worker at TAM-Arkiv

and Lars-Erik Hansen

Managing Director at TAM-Arkiv

TAGS: #workplacedemocracy #andersbergsten #swedishworkplaces #cohrgroup #organizationalpsychology #lotcosaco #unionrolesredefined #collaboration #sif #unionen #psychosocialissues #sweden #tamrevy #linterviewbyleifjacobsson #interviewbylarserikhansen #thoughtfigures #corporateloyaltyandidentity #article # interviewwithandreasbergsten #wageearnersfunds #neoliberalism #consensusversusindividualism #leifjacobsson #larserikhansen #interview #2010