# Swedish: har eller har haft vilande sådan ersättning



## Gavril

Some excerpts from a company's employee insurance policy:



> Med fullt arbetsför menas att den som ska försäkras:
> 
> kan fullgöra sitt vanliga arbete utan undantag, inte får ersättning som har samband med egen sjukdom, skada eller funktionshinder, *har eller har haft vilande sådan ersättning* i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna, inte av hälsoskäl har särskilt anpassat arbete, lönebidrag eller liknande.
> 
> [...]
> 
> För att vara fullt arbetsför krävs vidare att arbetsskadelivränta inte utbetalas eller att lönebidragsanställning eller *vilande aktivitetsersättning/sjukersättning* eller motsvarande ersättning inte är beviljad.



These sentences seem to contradict each other.

The first sentence seems to be saying that, in order to be regarded as having full work capacity ("fullt arbetsför"), you need to have had dormant compensation ("vilande ersättningar") for more than 14 days over the past 90 days.

But according to the second sentence, in order to qualify as a person with full work capacity, you *cannot* have been granted dormant activity compensation or dormant sickness compensation.

Could it be that the first sentence is missing an "inte"?
Or am I missing something about the meaning of "vilande", etc.?

Thanks for your time,
Gavril


----------



## AutumnOwl

It's the _inte_ in '... inte får ersättning som har samband med ..." that covers the bolded sentence. The "egen sjukdom, skada eller funktionshinder" are examples on reasons why a person can "ha eller ha haft vilande ersättning" from the Försäkringskassan. The compensation becomes dormant if a person choses to try to go back to work, even if they would have the right to stay on the activity/sickness compensation. They get paid their ordinary wages while they work, but can go back to get the compensation if they find out it's not possible for them to continue working. Usually the rules are that a person has to have worked for a certain period of time before being eligible for a new period of activity/sickness compensation.


----------



## Gavril

Thanks!

You're probably right that the initial _inte_ is meant to apply to the entire list.

However, if that's the case, why is there another _inte_ further on in the list?



> [...] *inte* får ersättning som har samband med egen sjukdom, skada eller funktionshinder, har eller har haft vilande sådan ersättning i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna, *inte* av hälsoskäl har särskilt anpassat arbete, lönebidrag eller liknande [...]



Is this sloppiness? Or is there a grammatical logic behind the second _inte_?


----------



## AutumnOwl

The second _inte_ covers other reasons than having dormant compensation that makes an employee to be considered as not being "fullt arbetsför". It can be an employee who for some health reason can't perform all the duties a work position demands, for example work night shifts but have no problems doing day shifts. "Lönebidrag" is an economic compensation to an employer who hires a person with some kind of disability. The compensation can be for example to adapt the work space for a person with a wheelchair. The economic compensation doesn't go to the employee, it goes to the employer for their higher expenses, and is meant as an encouragement to be willing to employ people who usually stand outside of the work force. It's the Swedish Public employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) that handles lönebidrag, while it's the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) that handles the dormant sickness and activity compensations.


----------



## Gavril

AutumnOwl said:


> The second _inte_ covers other reasons than having dormant compensation that makes an employee to be considered as not being "fullt arbetsför".



OK, but the sentence lists at least four reasons in total, only one of which directly mentions dormant compensation:

1. _kan fullgöra sitt vanliga arbete utan undantag_

2. _inte får ersättning som har samband med egen sjukdom, skada eller funktionshinder_

3. _[inte] har eller har haft vilande sådan ersättning i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna_

4. _inte av hälsoskäl har särskilt anpassat arbete, lönebidrag eller liknande_

Maybe the writer considered #2 and #3 to be a "sub-list" of its own, and therefore a single "inte" covers both of them but not any other items on the list?

In standard English, this kind of subdivision would normally be marked with a conjunction like "and"/"or":
"[...] does not receive compensation connected with his/her own illness *or* have dormant compensation [...]".

But it seems that Swedish (at least modern-day written Swedish) doesn't have quite the same conventions as English when it comes to conjunctions and lists. In this case, even the larger list (1 through 4) is not "closed" with a conjunction as it would be in English.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Gavril said:


> But it seems that Swedish (at least modern-day written Swedish) doesn't have quite the same conventions as English when it comes to conjunctions and lists. In this case, even the larger list (1 through 4) is not "closed" with a conjunction as it would be in English.



I have to say that I have a problem with #3. If I read the text rapidly I'd maybe assume an "inte", but if I read it again and thought about it grammatically I'd assume _no _"inte". And that leaves the text itself and what it would logically mean.

To me then the question is about a particular compensation, one you seem to get if you aren't 'fully capable' of working. So #2 seems to say that if you're currently receiving compensation then you're not considered "fully capable". That seems obvious.

But then why would #3 be worded the way it is and assuming an "inte"? If it's bad that you get compensation because it shows you're not fully capable of work then the _less _compensation you get the more capable you are, no? So if it reads that you should _not _have had that compensation dormant for more than 14 days out of 90 it means that it leaves _more _days in which you _could _have had that compensation. Without "inte" however it implies that if your compensation has been dormant for 15 days or more within the last 90 days, which is better since you've worked more, which implies you could be considered fully capable of work.

To put it differently: The "vilande" in that line of text is in conflict with "inte", logically speaking, with the previous #2 as context. To me the text makes sense by omitting *either *"inte" or "vilande".

Perhaps I just need coffee.


----------



## AutumnOwl

The text is written in a way that makes it difficult to decipher. It's just because I have a bit of knowledge about the Swedish social/healthcare system regulations that I can understand what is meant. As for the "... i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna ..." I'm not sure if the author only means that it applies for the "vilande ersättning" (number 3 in post #5) or if it  also applies for having recieved compensation for sick leave (number 2 in post #5). The reason why I can't decide if that period of time applies just for #3 or if that also covers #2 is that it's the employer who pays for sick leave the first 14 days, after that it's Försäkringskassan. If an employee have been on sick leave for a long period of time then after 90 days the employer has to begin an investigation if there is something that can be done to make it possible for the employee to get back to work. 

The author of this should have asked a colleague to read the text to see if they understood what it meant.


----------



## MattiasNYC

AutumnOwl said:


> As for the "... i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna ..." I'm not sure if the author only means that it applies for the "vilande ersättning" (number 3 in post #5) or if it  also applies for having recieved compensation for sick leave (number 2 in post #5).



It seems clear to me that the compensation refers to the previous point:

2. _inte får *ersättning som har samband med egen sjukdom, skada eller funktionshinder*_
3. _[inte] har eller har haft *vilande sådan ersättning *i mer än 14 dagar de senaste 90 dagarna_

I don't know what else "sådan" would refer to if not #2 in bold. And it makes sense to me in that #2 talks about _currently receiving _such compensation which of course means you aren't fully capable, whereas the next point talks about such compensation being dormant for X days out of 90 which would I suppose _maybe_ make you fully capable.

When I put it together a hyopthetical example interpretation would be that I get sick and get compensation for it (#2). Then after a while I start feeling better and ask to have the compensation be dormant while I try to go back to full time work. Since I'm just trying to get back to work and leaving the compensation dormant as a sort of safety it will take a while before the judgement is that I'm then 'fully capable', and that limit is set to 15 or more days out of the latest 90. So at 10 days of dormant compensation it isn't yet clear I'm 'recovered', but at 15 days that's the judgement.

To me that seems reasonable.



AutumnOwl said:


> The reason why I can't decide if that period of time applies just for #3 or if that also covers #2 is that it's the employer who pays for sick leave the first 14 days, after that it's Försäkringskassan. If an employee have been on sick leave for a long period of time then after 90 days the employer has to begin an investigation if there is something that can be done to make it possible for the employee to get back to work.



Can you explain how that fits into how you see it. I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning.



AutumnOwl said:


> The author of this should have asked a colleague to read the text to see if they understood what it meant.



I think we can definitely agree on that.


----------



## AutumnOwl

The possibility to have "vilande ersättning" is only available for a person who have been on sick leave for more than a year, and where the decision for sick leave compensation was made after June 1, 2008, if I have understood it right on this page from Försäkringskassan Sjukersättning (see towards the bottom of the page). It's a possibility for those being on a very long, perhaps permanent sick leave, but want to do a try to work, maybe at a new place. The "vilande ersättning" has to do with the level of the economic compensation if I understand it. You get compensation depending on how much you earn, and if a person takes a job with a lower pay then their compensation gets lower, but in the case of having a dormant compensation the person should not loose their pre-work try compensation level if they find out they can't continue working and has to go back to getting the compensation.

For a person in #2 who currently have compensation, for example because of a broken bone, or an operation with a longer convalescent period, there are no changes when it comes to their salary, and they will most likely receive the same raise in salary as their coworkers, even when they are on sick leave. In these cases the sick leave is usually less than one year, and there is no need for "vilande ersättning", as the patient and doctor can discuss on what level of sick leave a person needs to be (full, 25%, 50%, 75%, or none). Their basic salary doesn't change, the only thing that changes is what percentage they get from their employer, and how much from Försäkringskassan. It's first after a year or more, when it gets obvious that the employee will not be able to their job, they can be placed in group #3. While a person in group #2 can't be considered as "fullt arbetsför", perhaps because they can only work 75%, there is still the possibility that they will get well and begin working full time, but until then they are not eligible for the company's insurance policy.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Gavril said:


> Thanks!
> 
> You're probably right that the initial _inte_ is meant to apply to the entire list.
> 
> However, if that's the case, why is there another _inte_ further on in the list?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this sloppiness? Or is there a grammatical logic behind the second _inte_?


I think it is slopiness. The clauses are separated by a comma, and nothing indicates that "inte" is to be applied to the other clause. If, however, the inte were followed by a colon ( : ), then it could be followed by all clauses in affirmative, separated by commas.


----------

