Employee rights in Finland

Perhaps due to my "kind and selfless" personality, I have often found myself in difficult situations at work. Situations where I have had to seek help from my union's lawyers. Unfortunately, I have realized that although the rules might be clear in the eyes of the law, the reality can be very different. I have two examples from the past two years.

The job description and responsibilities of an employee can be changed without the need for negotiations

At a previous job, I had suffered from symptoms of burnout for over two years. My symptoms were essentially caused by three separate factors: the challenging situation in the industry, the amount of workload, and the poor organization of tasks.

My employer had a habit of scheduling all work-related contacts for times when I was not at work, essentially during evenings on weekdays and weekends. I didn't want to make a big deal out of it, so I handled it by responding to contacts only when I was back at work. Additionally, my employer constantly pressured me to handle tasks that were not at all related to the job I was hired for.

The bigger problems started when I finally dared to be honest with my employer and stated that the workload was overwhelming and that I genuinely needed help with different responsibilities. The representatives of the employer appeared to understand during a remote meeting and said they were on the same page with me.

However, a couple of days later, I received a threatening call from another supervisor after I inquired about why certain tasks were still being allocated to me even though we had agreed otherwise. The employer coldly stated that if I didn’t continue to handle these tasks, they would replace me.

I inquired about this in writing from another supervisor, which led to a series of lies and accusations, including claims that we had verbally agreed almost two years ago that these tasks would be mine after an employee who previously handled them was let go. I was also accused of focusing on my responsibilities only for personal success.

The law essentially states that if the job description of an individual employee is to be changed, official negotiations must take place, where the job contract and compensation are reviewed.

I consulted my union's lawyer, who said this was a common practice in small organizations and that there was practically nothing to be done.

Later that year, I was fortunate to be laid off for the second time and soon found a new job where I could start without a notice period.

There were issues with the final paycheck, as I had worked for the previous employer for about a month and a half without a contract. These hours had been recorded and promised to be compensated as soon as the situation allowed. My final paycheck was initially delayed, and when I reminded them that these previously promised hours should be compensated, the employer stated that it was up to them whether to compensate such hours. They also questioned my entire work, claiming I had reacted strongly to the request for submitting a time report at the end of the month. This was not true, and I had provided the employer with detailed reports containing over 4,000 entries of my hours and the purpose of each action for the past two months.

The threat of involving the union's legal experts worked, and the final paycheck was paid.

Employer is allowed to chain contracts on false pretenses

Another negative experience occurred later. I was hired as a maternity leave replacement at a job, and my contract had been extended in periods of 3-6 months for a long time. At some point, it became clear that my predecessor would never return to that job, so there was no longer any obstacle to making my contract permanent. Or was there? According to the new CEO, there was.

The Finnish law states the following about chaining fixed-term contracts:

Chaining fixed-term employment contracts means an employer makes several consecutive fixed-term contracts with an employee for the same job. Chaining contracts is not inherently illegal if each contract has a justified reason and the employer does not have a permanent need for labor. If there is even one contract in the chain without a justified reason, the employment should be considered indefinite.

Therefore, my previous contracts were justified due to the possibility of my predecessor's return, but now there should no longer be any obstacle.

Despite the efforts of my entire team and the HR representative, we could not get any answer from the CEO about why my contract would not be made permanent. I received another 3-month extension at that job thanks to a passionate speech by a long-term employee. This was justified as a gesture from the employer, but in reality, the employer needed someone to handle the tasks of three people during the summer holiday season. I agreed to the contract after much consideration because it was mid-summer, and being left with nothing while having a relatively large mortgage was not appealing.

I finally got the boot at the end of the summer when the CEO first spoke to me about team matters and then the HR representative stated that I would not be offered an extension. My last short-term contract included a clause that separate negotiations about my continuation would be held in August of that year, but these negotiations never took place.

The next day, I received a two-week sick leave – the first in my life.

I contacted my union's lawyers about my case, as it seemed clear: the continuous chaining of contracts clearly showed that the employer's need for labor was ongoing, making the chaining illegal.

But it wasn't. The employer's response included a long list of fabricated issues, including the outsourcing of my tasks, which never actually happened. Over half a year later, the employer posted my former position as open again.

In such cases, the employee has no rights. The employer has handled things poorly, but the law is once again on the employer's side.

This also allows any employer to act similarly in such situations. The employer can simply lie that the tasks of a fixed-term employee are being outsourced. Six months later, they can hire a new person without any consequences.

Leaving a bad job is a stroke of luck

I have been fortunate in my work life to have held challenging expert positions for years, which has allowed me to accumulate diverse and technically demanding skills that open many doors.

I have been working as a marketing specialist at my current job for a little over four months, and I am happy to say that I have no complaints at the moment. Why? Because I am treated like a human here. My workload is reasonable, I have enough responsibility, and I feel valued both as a person and as a specialist. In my current job, I get exactly the treatment I want. I am quite content with very little.

Getting my current job has been a stroke of luck, as I noticed I am recovering from my previous traumas. The process is slow and requires effort from me, but I am moving in the right direction. It is a huge thing when work is not just a negative part of daily life.

However, I am very disappointed in work life and especially in employee rights. These two experiences have been so eye-opening for me that if I ever find myself in similar situations again, I will no longer try to fight for my rights but will simply change jobs. No matter what the laws and regulations say, the employer always seems to get away with it.