Hvor er NHO?

Hans Rotmo og Vømmøl Spellemannslag provided accounts of Johannes Johansen's labor force, building the town. The honor went to part campaign materials in LO and DNA. They discussed the unscrupulous woodcutter Christian Gyldentand and the young man on the floor who started a trade union and threatened a strike. While the texts were good, they left little doubt about a fundamental truth: Gyldentand established, ran, and paid the guild.

This is a practical example of ownership in practice. Income prospects follow from profitability. Who should ultimately own the premise in societal debate? The guild cannot continue to raise prices without losing customers and subsequent resignations. NHO represents the guild. I grew up in the 80s and 90s when Yngve Hågensen, Karl Glad, and later Finn Bergesen Jr. teamed up.

It was tight. Hågensen shared profits, but on the other side, NHO leaders accepted and sent sharp pucks back. Three strong parties, three different interests. It worked. Over the past few years, there have been valuable wage negotiations. The guild is pressed for costs, margins are squeezed, and in the worst case, jobs disappear.

Meanwhile, LO complains about long working hours for the guy on the floor, and the round dance starts again. Norwegian owners move to Switzerland. Businesses face rigid regulations and lengthy public processes. Norway competes in a tough international market for capital and investment. These are issues that should put Gyldentand's successors at the top of the agenda.

Today, I see the state. I definitely see an offensive LO. But where in the world is NHO? Consider the debate over media ownership of sick pay. The debate heated up, and suddenly there was eerie silence. LO owned the media outlet and fully dominated the emotions by portraying it as a righteous struggle, while NHO lost public attention with dry remarks.

The result was that LO won the claim, and businesses remained bound by trade agreements where the media ownership obligation was taken on, leaving the economic risk and liquidity burden. Recently, LO also proposed a new AFP. The message to young workers was emotional and straightforward: greater security, greater predictability, and an AFP they can rely on.

NHO responded technically with demanding negotiations, economic self-protection, and costs for businesses. Certainly right. But who won the debate on the agenda? Perhaps NHO wins behind closed doors. But with 34,500 member businesses and over 700,000 work years, the organization is painfully small in the public arena. I am not asking for war rhetoric or increased polarization.

I ask for a premise-giving NHO that puts the agenda and ensures that the premise for creating value is on the table before the benefits are distributed. LO knows exactly who they represent. NHO represents the premise of Gyldentand. They must say it loudly. This is also about the future. Gen Z, today's young between 15 and 25 years, will be tomorrow's workers, founders, and owners.

Young scrollers who further ahead in a frenetic pace. NHO may have done an impressive job in the corridors. But then they have a serious problem with setting the premise. The benefits must be shared, yes. But someone must remind today's adults that values must be created first.