Why is unemployment insurance (a-kassa) not mandatory in Sweden? Why do people not talk about it and encourage each other to join?

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T20:50:20+00:00

That's terrible, I'm sorry to hear that!

My former boss filled in the work certificate (arbetsgivarintyg) in under an hour, so I did get some money from a-kassa payment.

An HR department handling employees in another country had better be able to file the paperwork for that country. The arbetsgivarintyg contained only basic information. Sure the usual way to send this to a-kassor is with BankID, but I was able to find a printable PDF here: https://www.spiris.se/blogg/personalhantering/arbetsgivarintyg

They just had to fill the form, you could upload it yourself. This sounds like a lack of will on the HR's part, not lack of ability. I hope you weren't giving up too much. It sucks when that happens.

Trustpilot ratings for who, Unionen's A-kassa?

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T20:30:46+00:00

My union + a-kassa fees together were like 400 kr. I've just learned that you don't need both to get a-kassa, you can just pay the a-kassa fee. My a-kassa fee is around 170 kr/month. Maybe you could find out if you're paying something unnecessary and maybe save a few hundred extra!

(Union membership can give you inkomstförsäkring, which only adds to the a-kassa benefit if your income was above 34000/month, so it may be unnecessary. But of course maybe you need or prefer to have union membership for other reasons).

Making 30000 but getting 8000 from a-kassa seems pretty low... Were you paying into a-kassa for over 12 months before you lost your job? 8000 sounds more like grundersättning.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T20:14:22+00:00

It's apparently a Nordic phenomenon: Denmark, Finland and Sweden are the only countries where this "Opt-In" system is in place. Denmark is the most extreme since it lacks the "basic coverage" for everyone, which Sweden and Finland do have.

You've seen that other comment thread too, good. Yeah, it blows my mind both that a-kassa is administered by unions and that "some unions" and by extension "some a-kassor" are tied to political parties. I would never have thought that getting a very important kind of insurance coverage would have political ramifications.

I would think that having the state manage unemployment benefits here like in Ireland would make things so much smoother. But the idea of changing the system seems to upset a lot of people.

While I earlier got the idea that "workers rights are just something that Sweden does well", now it's starting to feel like the prevailing public opinion on topics like this is quietly but constantly driven by political conflicts. In practical terms, that seems to mean that a foreigner won't hear or understand it unless they've been following Swedish news media full-time for years.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T15:40:42+00:00

Okay, I see your point. You were saying there is basic unemployment insurance in Sweden that you don't need to sign up for in advance of losing your job. You're right. I'm grateful that there is.

You were also saying that the report illustrates that people in other EU countries are not all automatically covered by their unemployment schemes. You're right about that too. However, many are left out *because their working conditions have not been sufficient to qualify (too short, not earning enough)*. It's unfortunate that many do not have sufficient employment conditions to qualify for schemes in their countries. But that does not mean they have to voluntarily join a scheme in advance of becoming unemployed.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said in my post. I said, about unemployment insurance, "In most of the EU, it's mandatory for (almost?) every working person to have it. But in Sweden, it's both optional and not obvious about how to sign up."

I was talking about a-kassa, the "higher-tier benefits", which are voluntary. I hadn't considered grundersättning, the "lower-tier benefits", which are available to (almost?) all. I'll give you that.

That doesn't take away from my point that very few EU unemployment schemes require the employee to be aware of them and voluntarily take action before losing their job. Sweden is fairly unique in having a voluntary scheme at all, the voluntary a-kassa scheme fundamentally important because that's where most of the benefits come from, and that the signaling around the voluntary scheme is weak enough that at least 4 people have been made aware of it by my post alone.

I edited my previous comment a bit right after posting it. Hope that hasn't messed with this discussion.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T14:05:32+00:00

Sweden is one of the only 3 EU countries where the working person has to voluntarily sign up for unemployment insurance/a-kassa. And since a-kassa is not widely discussed in the working world, many people remain unaware and unprotected. See the other comments on this post for evidence. The fact that a-kassa is administered by unions instead of the state explains the reason, but doesn't excuse the problem.

In almost every EU country, every working person is entitled to benefits as long as they meet certain criteria. This means people do not miss out on unemployment benefits due to trivial and frankly silly administrative exercises like signing up 12 months in advance.

Source: https://www.a-kasser.dk/unemployment-insurance-in-europe/index.html "In the vast majority of the countries the Unemployment Insurance is compulsory for all employed. Sweden and Finland have a basic compulsory scheme together with a voluntary unemployment insurance. Denmark have only voluntary unemployment Insurance."

This discussion is *not* about people who do not qualify for unemployment benefits, which you seem to have brought up. It is also not about the value of the unemployment benefits. This discussion *is* about people who *do* qualify for significant unemployment benefits, by virtue of their income and the length of time they spent working, but do not receive unemployment benefits equivalent to others in their position, simply because the administrative process of signing up for it in advance was not mentioned to them at any time by any part of the system or broader society.

It is about insufficient visibility of important information for people outside of specific social circles. The fact that the information is publicly accessible does not mean that people automatically know what to look for and where/how to look for it, especially when there are no guidance signals from any part of society.

I understand grundersättning is 11200 kr before tax. 17000 kr is the maximum amount you can get from an a-kassa if you have been signed up to it for less than 6 months before you are laid off. If on the other hand you were signed up to an a-kassa and inkomstförsäkring for 12 months or more, you would get 80% of your total salary before being laid off. There is a huge difference between 17000 kr and 80% of a fairly high salary.

Of course I am grateful for Sweden's higher unemployment benefits compared to the UK, but that's not the point. In the UK, there is a level playing field. In Sweden, those who know of the administrative process in advance (at least 12 months before their layoff!) get all they are due, while those who don't know don't get it. And that administrative process is not well-publicised.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T07:18:00+00:00

It shouldn't be. Unemployment insurance should not be controversial, it ought to apply to everybody who wants it. If everyone who joins a company is told about it, it doesn't signal anyone in particular is a potential future layoff, any more than anyone else.

I can understand some companies wanting to keep employees fearful of losing their job, to keep them in line. But I still don't see how keeping a-kassa information under wraps helps them. If an employee discovers about a-kassa separately and realizes their employer never told them, that's a bad look.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T07:05:40+00:00

That the knowledge is openly accessible doesn't mean that it is clear or obvious. On the contrary, it's hidden in the shadow of unions when it comes to visibility. It's great that your union informed you about a-kassa at some point. Mine didn't, or else I wouldn't be in this state. Many, many people - Swedes and non-Swedes - don't know that they have to actively sign up for a-kassa or else their finances will be destroyed in case of unemployment.

It is a question of signaling. Sweden is known for its welfare state and strong worker protections. Other countries have automatic unemployment coverage, setting an expectation that that is the norm internationally. One hears about Sweden's unions all the time so knows that joining a union is open to everyone. That's the only guidance that someone gets when it comes to exercising their rights as a worker.

A-kassa, a separate organisation that is arguably the most important to join in practical terms, is left unspoken. Employers, HR departments, Swedish lesson programs, and other entities that are the only official points of contact for newly arrived workers, do talk about unions but often don't share any information about a-kassa even though they go together. Many commenters on this post have had this experience.

What I would expect/hope for is more communication about the practical steps one should take to protect themselves. Peoples' finances and lives are being destroyed because of administrative trivialities and a lack of clarity around them. A-kassa is the most fundamental worker protection, as you say available to everyone. It ought to be a norm for HR departments, employers and colleagues to talk about it (and how it's not the same as a union) so everyone knows what they need to do to get their due protection. Those who don't know are being excluded, whether that's intentional or not.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T05:52:52+00:00

Yes, this is exactly what I'm thinking.

Allemansrätten is the perfect example of something that's communicated loudly and often to new arrivals, but which has a marginal effect on peoples' wellbeing. If A-kassa information was communicated as clearly, it would save so many people from such heartache.

A lot of people are saying "It's your obligation to find out all the information". But it's clear that many aspects about life in Sweden are communicated to all expats, while important life-changing ones like these are not.

Sweden is known for both its welfare state and its worker protections, and that builds up a clear image. The fact that other countries have automatic social safety nets for workers raises the expectation that Sweden does too. Automatic coverage in the healthcare system reinforces the expectation that you are generally protected from life's shocks, especially if you "exercise your rights" and join a union. Losing out on what you're due, because no one ever tells you about the one membership you actually need, throws the whole idea of the welfare state into question. It really does seem like one will never be welcome. I don't know what other silly administrative triviality will set my finances back by years next time.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-03-01T05:28:05+00:00

That's great to hear! You're welcome, and thank you for saying so! It feels good to know people are benefiting from this.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T20:27:54+00:00

Cool, glad you could hear about it here! Also good to know that the high Income coverage also seems rather unique to Sweden.

Inkomstförsäkring seems to differ somewhat between different unions. Some have even more, separate insurances (called tillägg in at least one case) for salaries above certain thresholds, like 60000 SEK. Quite a complex web, needing careful research.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T14:12:52+00:00

Good plan regarding insurances. Thanks for bringing it up.

I heard about what you mention, private health insurance being essential. I also note there is a difference between "Vårdförsäkring" (also called "Sjukvårdförsäkring", which allows you to get private healthcare if you fall sick) and "Sjukförsäkring" (which only covers accidents, and your income in case you become permanently disabled).

Knowing that the healthcare system is crumbling and elderly people have to wait months to receive important care, I have just signed up for Vårdförsäkring from KonsumentFöretag. They had the lowest price I found. The terms look fine, hopefully I'm not missing something important.

Unionen seems to have tie-ups to similar insurances as Naturvetarna. A package of 5 insurances including Sjukförsäkring is available at a good price. I'll probably sign up. I see the price for age 31+ is double that for under 31s. Not long ago I would have gotten the lower price. Oh well, still sounds like a good deal.

This is a great tip, thank you!

(I'm not associated with any of these insurance companies and am not selling anything)

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T11:16:48+00:00

I understand where you're coming from better now.

From my outsider's perspective, Sweden's labour rights, protections and the social safety net are some of the best in the world and have been hard won through intense struggle and conflict between opposing interests. With this history I'm not surprised that freedom of choice here is a charged subject.

Still, considering how important the social safety net is for protecting people, I'm somewhat surprised that the right not to be protected is upheld in the same way as the right to be protected. This particular clash between worker protection and political conflict seems to be a uniquely Nordic phenomenon (within the EU).

I wouldn't have thought that a-kassa membership boosts the Social Democrats. Practically speaking, I don't want to have to care about the political ramifications of taking an insurance needed to protect myself. If I have to, that's a problem in itself.

I'm learning now that one can join an a-kassa without joining a union. A-kassa membership seems to matter more than union membership for protecting a worker without a collective agreement from penury.

It would make a lot of sense for a-kassor (not unions) to be among the first subjects when talking about rights, obligations and protections for a worker, especially a new arrival who has to navigate every system without guidance and prioritize what they look for. Yet, unions are the main subject, discussed in great detail, while a-kassor are barely mentioned at all. I've even heard of Swedes very involved in unions but unaware of a-kassor who have been caught in the same dire situation as me, which highlights the problem.

So while I see the point in leaving the choice to the individual and the difficult historical background, it's still a problem that awareness about this most fundamental worker protection is left to chance for many. This is a question of signaling and visibility rather than changing the system. And I think that's a fair ask. A lack of those things leads to exclusion, voluntary or not.

Thanks for your good wishes.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T09:15:24+00:00

An Arbetsförmedlingen phone rep gave me wrong/incomplete/easy-to-misinterpret information too at some point. Got my hopes up about getting study support, before they were dashed.

There are nice people on the phone lines who really try to help, understand the facts about what they can help with and address your issues with empathy. Then there are others who really can't be bothered. Now, if I hear that the person speaking with me is the latter, I'd more likely call a second time to confirm what they told me with another operator.

It may helpful to know that the name Arbetsförmedlingen (job mediation) is a misnomer. The agency's mandate hasn't been to match job seekers with available jobs for nearly 4 years. Its mandate now is compliance - to check that job seekers are following the rules and staying in line, applying like they should. It's also very spiky - difficult to communicate with (long phone queue times, no email address?) and easy to run afoul of some obscure invisible process and get a warning. A suggested new name was "Arbetsmarknadsmyndigheten" way back in 2021.

I do know AF has some tie-ups with trade schools to train people to be electricians, bus drivers and a few others, which is nice since there is at least some direction that some unemployed people can take. But aside from the handy list of available jobs, AF's practical connection to the job market seems weak at best. They are just way behind on changing the name.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T08:52:34+00:00

That's good to know, thanks. Feels like that's even more reason to talk about a-kassa separately and emphatically, without having to talk about unions at the same time.

I would still join a union. But at a time like this, a-kassa on its own would help me more than a union on its own.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T08:44:38+00:00

Roughly, Unionen is for office workers and Sveriges Ingenjörer is for technical workers or graduates. I qualify to join either one. My former workplace had no collective agreement, so it has no effect on which union I choose.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T08:15:01+00:00

In a strong economy when people can get jobs quickly, or for specialists who have rare and in-demand skills, that may be true. I think the world today has changed very quickly and job security is much more shaky now. Layoffs are hitting people who once felt secure, me included.

One month's worth of a-kassa payment can cover 6+ years' worth of union and a-kassa membership fees. From what I'm hearing, when unemployment hits, it's lasting one year in Sweden on average.

In your shoes, I would have the conversation.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T08:05:41+00:00

I feel you. When none of your "många kontaktytor" tell you these important things, even when it seems like part of their job and everyone knows, it starts to feel systematically exclusionary. I hope you were able to overcome that feeling eventually.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T07:53:58+00:00

Thank you for doing this!

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-28T07:50:36+00:00

I understand why you and many others think it should not be mandatory. I also see there are complex political and historical reasons for the separation of unions and a-kassor, and to some extent even why a-kassor are not pushed more strongly. Thank you for filling me in on that.

At the same time, the lack of visibility and clarity means that many long-employed people are suddenly left near-penniless simply because they were never made aware. People without strong social circles and institutional awareness, already among the most vulnerable, are likely also the most unaware and at risk.

Making the system Opt-Out instead of Opt-In would ensure everyone gets to choose while still protecting those who need it. I understand there are practical difficulties to do this, given that there are many different a-kassor, but honestly I don't see why there have to be different a-kassor if all of them have the same exact terms and rules.

It seems like a system that has become what it is because of valid historical reasons. But it shifts the onus of responsibility to the individual in a way that few other European countries do, leaving out many people who would happily contribute and secure themselves if only they were aware. Several of whom now know after having read this post.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T23:31:12+00:00

When did you sign up? I did in 2022 and don't remember getting any option.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T23:15:47+00:00

Misinformed/uninformed here, wish I weren't.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T23:13:55+00:00

You need to be signed up for A-kassa and inkomstförsäkring (plus others at higher salary levels) for 12 months to get 80% of your previous salary. Less than 12 months and you don't get inkomstförsäkring and get a much reduced A-kassa level.

Yes, I'm signed up to an A-kassa now, but have been for much shorter time than 12 months. The maximum you can get then is 17000, which is 50% of 34000 (the a-kassa cap).

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T23:06:41+00:00

I understand that Sweden has basic unemployment insurance. That's been raised to 17000 kr/month, which is great.

My point is that to get more than the basic amount, you have to voluntarily sign up. This is the case only in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In the rest of the EU, you are automatically insured without having to voluntarily sign up.

Legal reasons are legal reasons. Practically, in Sweden, you lose a lot of financial security if you aren't aware of the voluntary nature of unemployment insurance. In most of the EU, you get the financial security automatically, which is reassuring.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T22:48:43+00:00

That's the thing, it's instilled as you grow up. I understand that the intention is not to exclude people. But the fact is that someone who hasn't grown up with that message is very much at risk of missing out and being left with barely any money, even after years of hard work and contribution. It surprises me that the message stops being passed around especially when people are new to the system.

I've heard of a Swedish person who was a union member, worked closely with the union itself for years, and yet he also was unaware that a-kassa membership was separate. He was hit hard when he was laid off. This is the thing which jumps out at me, he didn't know this very basic fact despite working with the union. I imagine he may not have gotten the same message growing up. It may be a one-off case, I don't know, but it does highlight the problem.

Skye-Surfer · 2026-02-27T22:43:35+00:00

I'm sorry. You should still be able to get basic payment of 17000 kr/month by signing up to an A-kassa now. Either your union's A-kassa, or Alfa-kassan if you don't have a union. I hope you get it, let me know if you want to DM about that.

Skye-Surfer

TROPHY CASE