Use the side menu by clicking the arrow icon on the right to quickly jump between sections.
Salary system
The wage system in Borås has changed, responsibilities have been shifted, and the influence of blue-collar workers has decreased. What is said to be fair in theory does not work in practice.
This page describes the wage system for blue-collar workers at Parker's factory in Borås, Sweden.
Parker describes its salary system as fair, transparent and market-based. The salary should reflect responsibility, performance and competence. The principles are said to apply equally throughout the organization.
That's the official picture.
The reality in Borås
Blue-collar Workers in the Borås factory describe a different reality.
Salaries are perceived as low in relation to the workload. Salary development is weak, even after many years in service. Differences between departments and individuals often lack clear logic. Experience is valued low, even though the factory depends on experience to function.
What should be predictable has become arbitrary.
From competency blocks to individual salary
Previously, the salary system was based on competency building blocks. It was clear, collective, and negotiated by the union. Everyone knew what was required to increase their salary.
The new system is based on individual wage setting. Blue-collar workers will negotiate alone with their manager. The assessment is subjective and varies between departments and managers.
It creates a fundamental inequality:
The extroverted blue-collar workers can argue for themselves.
The introverted blue-collar workers cannot assert themselves in the same way.
The result is that communicative ability is valued more than actual competence.
Several people testify that an extremely talented and productive blue‑collar worker received lower grades than colleagues who are better at speaking up for themselves. This is perceived as unfair.
From collective distribution to shifting responsibility
The previous wage system was based on a simple principle: each year a guaranteed minimum wage increase was set in the collective agreement. Anything above this level could be freely distributed by the company among the workers.
Despite this freedom, the company chose to let IF Metall's workshop club handle the distribution. This reduced the risk of conflict and gave a sense of collective justice. The company had the power – but did not use it.
The new system: same power, but changed responsibility
In the new system, companies and unions negotiate each year how much of the salary increase should be fixed and how much should be variable. The company can allocate the variable part according to its own assessments.
But in practice, this is not a new power. The company already had the ability to distribute salary increases freely, as long as the central guarantee was followed. The difference is not in power – but in responsibility.
When blue-collar workers question their wage development, the company can now refer to the workshop club: “It is your own organization that was involved in developing the system.”
The result is a system where the company retains power but escapes criticism.
The falling bonus argument
Under the old system, when the union demanded wage increases above the central level, the company representative would say: “You have the bonus that increases purchasing power.”
After the introduction of ACIP, that argument no longer holds. White-collar workers have suddenly received twice as high a bonus percentage as blue-collar workers. This means that the bonus can no longer be used as a counterargument when blue-collar workers demand reasonable wage increases.
When ACIP creates a bonus gap, the argument that the bonus should compensate for low wage growth also falls apart.
Subjective criteria and risk of a culture of silence
The new system contains a large number of subjective criteria, such as “how enthusiastically do you take on new tasks?”, “how well do you take negative criticism?” and “do you spread negative vibes in the group?”.
Such assessments can be used to guide behavior, reward loyalty, or punish a blue‑collar worker who voices criticism. This creates the risk of a culture of silence, where financial consequences influence what a blue‑collar worker dares to say.
When salary is affected by attitude and mood, criticism becomes a financial risk. Who dares to speak out?
Negotiation status
At a local negotiation, the company representative stated that if the company did not receive the variable portion it demanded, the blue-collar workers would not receive any further wage increase beyond the central level.
It clearly shows who has the negotiating space – and who doesn't.
Salary development over time
Many people in Borås have worked 20, 30 or 40 years in the factory.
Despite this, several describe that salary growth is stagnating. It reflects neither experience nor responsibility. Loyalty does not pay off.
When experience does not pay off, the system loses its legitimacy.
The connection with the work environment
The salary system cannot be seen in isolation from the work environment.
Heavy lifting.
Fast pace.
Painkillers to keep you going.
Exhausted bodies.
Few opportunities for reassignment.
Despite this, salary levels are low in relation to the workload.
When the body wears out faster than wages rise, an imbalance arises that no system can defend.
The system error
The problem is not individual managers. The problem is not individual decisions.
The problem is a system where experience is not valued, workload is not reflected in salary, individual salary setting creates inequality and transparency is low. Wage development is weak, even for those who have carried production for decades.
A system that does not reward experience, responsibility, and strain is not only unfair – it is unsustainable.
Use the side menu by clicking the arrow icon on the right to quickly jump between sections.