There were many points on which the employers ' representatives Mattias Dahl and Joakim Ärlund took up in reply to my letter to the editor about hamnkonflikten.
It had been more interesting for the DN's readers to take part of your list of requirements where the basic trade union rights are depreciated from the so-called collective agreement. On the port.now one can read both the Swedish Ports and Hamnarbetarförbundets agreement.
to be with and negotiate on members ' terms and conditions when we organise the majority of the dockworkers in many places. At any time, we do it together with the transport workers ' union. Ärlund and Dahl know that it works – it has been the practice in the hamnvardagen for decades.
I am sincerely uncomprehending employers ' concerns prior to the agreements would drift apart over time. It is you who are sitting with the pen and have an overview of both agreements.
If you only sign a common collective agreement with us, you have also comprehensive fredsplikt during the period when local conditions are negotiated. Instead you choose to throw out the entire industry in the conflict. So far you have closed down the production with the lockout in the staggering over 1,200 hours.
Sweden's Ports using my and my colleagues ' safety as utpressningsmedel to keep us away from förhandlingsrummet. Release the annex and to sign a common agreement with the us, instead, fully in line with the Swedish model.
The real reason for the conflict is not resolved, then a long time is obvious. A wet dream is being realized for the employers ' side, namely, the abolition of the right to strike as it looks today.