In February 2025 the Swedish dock workers’ union took industrial action through a blockade
of Israeli cargo, as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian people. On the first day of the
blockade, the union representative leading the strike, Erik Helgeson, received notice from the
employer DFDS that he was fired, labelled as a threat to national security.
Since the beginning of May, the dockers have been striking to achieve improvements in the
national contract. Part of their demands is stronger protection for union representatives. We
met Erik Helgeson in the union’s office at Gothenburg Roro terminal to talk about the union’s
history and structure, the Israeli blockade and international solidarity.
Could you provide our audience with a concise historical overview of the Dockworkers’
Union? When and under what circumstances was it established? Is it a state-affiliated
entity or an independent labor organization? What socio-political or economic issues
prompted its formation?
The confederation of Swedish trade unions founded the Social democratic party at the turn of
the last century. So there’s definitely a connection between the confederation and the state, but
I wouldn’t say it’s state or party controlled. In the 60s, there was this effort in the
confederation to centralize power by trying to control all the unions below them, as part of
their strategy to win bargaining power with the state and the employers. This was a gradual
process that began in the 1930s. In the 60’s, the confederation wanted to get rid of a lot of
aspects of local democracy, like member referendums and votes. They also wanted better
political control over the people that the workers elected for different positions. So, what they
did was they introduced something called “ombudsman”, a high-ranking trade union official
who is not elected from below but appointed by the national board. Having all these employed
people at the mid-level of the organization, the concept was that they would work as a filter
against bad initiatives from the bottom.
There were a lot of misgivings about this in different sectors. The dock workers, belonging to
the transport workers’ union, were very skeptical. They had a more militant background, and
it was in their DNA to have the votes and referendums. So, when they suggested that all the
locals in the north of Sweden, which is not densely populated, would be merged into one, that
meant that a lot of workers would have to go a very long way just to participate in a meeting
and in the votes. And this was practically impossible. In addition, the dock workers elected
people that weren’t loyal to the Social democratic structure, and the confederation wanted to
get rid of them. All of this created a situation where a lot of the dock workers were very
disappointed in the development of the confederation. It was also a time of wild cat strikes
that the union wouldn’t support. On top of this, there was a national dispute on the national
contract – the dock workers voted no to it, but the leadership signed it anyway. All of this
culminated in 1972, when the locals in the north refused to comply with the new rules and
were expelled from the transport workers’ union and from the confederation. There were
about 800 of them. Many workers in the ports in the south joined them, founding a new union – the Swedish dock workers’ union. It’s been a long ride. The first 48 years we couldn’t win a
national contract. We’ve handled this situation fairly good anyway, up until 2015, when they
tried to kill us off and they failed. Now they’re trying again. We’ll see how it goes this time.
When it comes to the political question, our union is founded on no party affiliations. We just
interact with politicians when it suits the workers’ agenda. Since we were the only
independent union in the 70’s, we were isolated, we were attacked from the outside and the
confederation and employers tried to kill us off – which meant we had to orient ourselves
outwards, internationally. We built a rank-and-file network of dock workers in European
ports. Being independent also meant we were free to act. When the Social democrats told the
confederation to sit tight on different issues, the dictatorship in Chile or apartheid South
Africa for example, we didn’t have to listen, so we were often the first ones out.
Could you elaborate on the internal electoral process —how are leaders nominated and
elected within the union structure?
In the locals we have general assemblies every year. Some terms are two-year terms, it differs
between the locals. Here in Gothenburg the chairmen have a two-year term. All the other
positions we re-elect every year. All the rank-and-file members can nominate a candidate.
Let’s turn to the recent decision to initiate strike action. When was this decision taken,
and who was responsible—was it driven by union leadership or voted on by the rankand-
file?
The modern history of it is that in 2010 the Freedom Flotilla took an initiative, and the rankand-
file members filed a petition that we should contribute. We did – we loaded cargo, tried to
facilitate different aspects of the transports for the cargo to get to Greece where their ships
were supposed to start from. And then the ships were boarded and eight people were killed. At
that point we had a national board meeting and took a very quick decision to block all Israeli
cargo for about 10 days. But the decision was taken too fast, without a proper referendum, so
it created a rift within the union. We tried to learn from that, it was a divisive issue. When this
latest Gaza war started, we had a much slower approach in order not to run ahead of the
membership. We could have probably gotten a majority yes in November 2023, but then you
would have to skip the whole process of involving the members.
After the summer of 2024 we started an internal discussion on whether we could approach
this in a way that would give the members a more neutral ground to make a decision. The
national board filed a petition for the general assembly of the whole national union to be held
in November. The suggestion was not that we’d take action, but we would call a referendum
amongst all members – again, the thing was we wanted it to be an open question, we didn’t
want to shove it down the throats of the membership, we wanted everyone to vote according
to their hearts and beliefs. We had a closed vote, and it was a very clear decision that we
should move on to the referendum. It took place in December. The vote was very clear, 68
percent in favor. So we decided this is what we’re going to execute, and we started that
process in January this year.
Was the action considered legally protected under national labor law?
Yes, that was our approach. There is a praxis of old verdicts that you can follow to see where
it’s safe to go and not. Solidarity actions and even political actions is protected in the Swedish
constitution, but it’s limited. You can’t take political action that is deemed too intrusive for the
companies. We found a verdict from 1980 regarding dockworkers blocking cargo to and from
the fascist regime in Chile – it was a week-long blockade, and we just kept within those
boundaries. By then we’d learn more about the extent of exports and imports and it became
clear to us that this would mainly be a symbolic thing, because exports were very low and
declining. The big thing was the imports. Swedish military is buying a lot of Israeli systems. I
would say that’s probably a hundred times more common. The self-image of the Swedish
people is that we export a lot of weapons, but that they’re not being used. We have ended up
with a lot of scandals over the years because we sell to third parties who then sell the weapons
on. During the US war on Iraq-Afghanistan a lot of weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia who
sold them on and three months later they show up in Mosul or Bagdad. Exports are still quite
regulated and there are governmental reports on sales. Imports are not regulated, there are no
committees overseeing them. Still, these are huge contracts, and the companies involved are
very keen on advertising them so we could still find out that there were these billion euro
contracts from Israeli Elbit and Raphael and all these state or semi-state controlled weapon
industries in Israel selling weapons to Sweden. We immediately questioned whether this cargo
would go by ship, we think that a lot of this is high-tech stuff that they would probably fly in
anyway. At an early stage in January, we saw that it is very unlikely that we’re going to find
any cargo in the ports, especially if the time frame for the blockade is just a week. But we
thought that the publicity could be used anyway, to highlight the suffering of children and
civilians in Gaza, so we just pushed on. We were challenging the courts and the employers,
and they responded aggressively. They made a lot of arguments of this hampering the
Swedish ability to defend itself, and national interest were at stake. They went to court, but
the court was not willing to rule on the matter at first. The second time, we were better
prepared for making our case, and on the 4th of February the court ruled that the actions were
legal. And yeah, that’s the same day that they fired me instead.
Was the sacking of you legal?
No. The blockade was legal, laying me off wasn’t. My speculation is that they thought that the
Israel/Palestine issue would be so divisive, that they could get away with other stuff that they
wanted to do anyway. Like sacking me. Part of it, we think, is not related to the Israeli
blockade. I am the head of the bargaining team of the national contract, so they tried to fuck
with me and the union. It didn’t play out well for them. Even the right-wing media were very
skeptical to begin with. And that’s partly about how they did it, putting out a press release
saying I was laid off with regards to national security. I think that part wasn’t thought through
on their part, they just used the most graphic language they could in order to create an effect.
One demand we’re pursuing in the renegotiation of the national contract and the related
strikes, is stronger protection for elected officials. What it would mean in practice is just that
they would pay higher fines for doing the same shit. The law says you can’t fire anyone
without a sound case, but the law has a special paragraph that says even if you don’t have the
legal grounds to fire anyone, you can still say that you have a cooperation problem and then
you have to pay an additional fine, but then you get rid of the person anyway. We’re trying to
introduce higher fines that are connected to the actual turn out of the company.
What core message(s) were you aiming to communicate through this industrial action?
What would you like to say to the Palestinian people in this context? And what message,
if any, is directed toward the Israeli state?
The message to the Israeli state is that we don’t want to buy your shit or in any way contribute
to your economy as long as you’re oppressing the Palestinian people.
When it comes to the Palestinian people, it feels a bit futile to have a message for people
starving to death. We have all these conventions about genocide, you could even argue that
we’re legally obligated to take action if we can. I just hope that for some individuals suffering
all these atrocities in Gaza, they might see that there’s some resistance in the world, that the
tables might be turning and that there might be a future ahead that is not as bleak and fucking
crazy as the stuff they’re living through now. That there are a lot of people that actually still
believe in human rights and international law. Because the big powers are communicating that
the old system – even if it never worked properly – is gone, and we don’t have human rights
anymore. It’s a lost concept. It’s not a world we’re willing to accept.
Were you and your colleagues aware of the potential legal repercussions prior to
commencing the strike?
Yes and no. We were very prepared for the companies to challenge the strikes, we knew that
would happen, they challenge everything we do. But we did not expect they’d fire me.
If not, do you now have any regrets?
No.
From your perspective, what has been the most significant achievement to date?
The achievement was purely public opinion. We had a month of very vivid public debate
about what was happening in Gaza, we highlighted that this military trade is ongoing even
now. Practically, we didn’t achieve anything, which was expected. There are a lot of
complicating factors, one is that we don’t know what cargo is transported, another one is we
can’t investigate because it’s illegal. We contributed in the way we could, and I’m very proud
of that.
Where the solidarity messages or declarations you received mostly from Sweden or
internationally?
Both. The first month they came mostly from Sweden. It’s still spreading internationally,
amongst dock workers and other unions. It’s slow, it goes from mouth to mouth, so people are
still hearing or reading about it just now. It’s also raising the question in places where it hasn’t
been raised before. So that might be significant – or not, you never know. In the future a lot of
important people will claim that they were the tilting point, I don’t think the world works like
that. It’s just a big mess of people trying to do what they can and at some point, the last drop
turns the tables around. It was the same with South Africa, we could claim that we were the
first in Sweden to initiate the apartheid boycott, were we the most important? No. Had it been
as effective if we didn’t have Olof Palme as prime minister at the time? No, probably not. But
you can’t separate one thing from another, what we did might have affected unions and even
union leaders that actually hate us to change their position in some way. I just take comfort in
the fact that if you do what you can we the means that you have, then that has to be enough.
You can’t just sit at home and pray for someone powerful and important to take action
because most of the time it won’t happen.
What forms of support or engagement did you hope to see from the Swedish working
class? More strikes?
No, that wasn’t realistic. Just to raise the topic would be enough and I think we achieved that.
But to have a union movement that hasn’t done anything for anyone during the last 40 years
suddenly starting other strikes or industrial actions in that direction is unrealistic. But they’re
raising the issue at the general assemblies of the metal workers and the public sector. In some
cases the vote was tight, which is very uncommon in Sweden. If you have a tight vote where
the membership almost votes in favor of undermining the national leadership, that’s a big
thing. And that’s what’s happening, slowly, slowly.
And regarding the media, what role do you believe independent media outlets and
alternative platforms should play in covering and amplifying your cause? What
expectations do you have of their involvement?
There’s been quite a big media cover. Both in mainstream media and smaller ones. The
smaller ones very much depend on the quality of the journalism, when they do journalistic
work trying to get to the bottom of stuff, they can actually influence the mainstream media.
And the mainstream media, it’s moving. Just in the last few weeks there’s been a big shift in
rhetoric when it comes to Gaza for example. Independent media are important for us because
it always gives us a chance to get our opinions out, but still in Sweden what forms the public
opinion is the mainstream media.
Is there anything else you would like to add—any reflections, appeals, or final thoughts
you wish to share?
In the last months we’ve been contacted by international unions in different places, regarding
Gaza. We have developed contacts internationally for the last 25 years. These international
unions are our friends, and they bring the issues up in their countries. But now we’re getting
contacted by smaller unions. They’re asking us questions and we try to answer them, and one
or two of these turns out to be the seeds of other initiatives and that’s brilliant. There were
these ships in Marseille where the dockers found out that there would be containers with parts
of machine guns going to Israel, and they refuse to load it. The ship went to Italy, and dockers
tried to chase it through the ports to prevent it. They got commitments by other dockers, and
then you have this herd effect. If enough people do it, it’s effortless for the last ones stepping
in. You can’t stop military trade without government interference, but if there’s enough
disturbances in the transport chains, then it becomes very costly. And that’s what happened
with apartheid South Africa, even when all the governments said they’d isolate South Africa,
they could still import and export but it was fucking expensive. Sometimes people think “Oh
we still have Russian gas coming to Sweden” – yes, but it’s one ship every six months and it’s
a big media thing every time. My guess is that the Russians are not getting paid the same for
their gas anymore. That’s the outcome of it. And if they don’t, then there’s pressure. And
pressure works differently for different states. If more of these initiatives pop up, then it will
spread like a virus. And anyone that wants to trade with Israel and commit themselves
financially has to face that the cargo might not show up until December because the ship is
being chased around the Mediterranean. Then the pressure is on.
Editorial team, June 12th, 2025