ABSTRACT
This chapter describes and discusses the situation of Swedish safety representatives (SRs) with respect to formal rights and position, power balance and influence, and the social construction of risks and solutions. It is prefaced by a short account of the development of the Swedish work environment (WE) system and how recent economic and political changes may have affected this and the position of safety reps. An underlying question is, Why do safety reps refrain from fully using their rights and opportunities to act against risk at work? They may pursue any serious risk as much as is needed. And work environment surveys indicate widespread and serious risks at work that the SRs (and others) could require employers to improve (AV, 2010). The risks are estimated to cause at least 1,000 fatalities per year, but possibly many more (Järvholm, 2010). Despite this, in 2006, only 3% of the blue collar SRs in the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) survey had used their right to appeal to the labor inspectorate during the previous 3 years (Gellerstedt, 2007: 49-50). Case studies also indicate that safety reps do not use all of their rights to pursue issues they find important (e.g., Frick, 1994; Frick and Forsberg, 2010). To at least somewhat understand the difference between theoretical and real safety rep influence, we have to look not only to their formal position but also to their labor-market power and how risks are constructed and understood at the workplace; and how these factors have changed in the Swedish labor market.
