The argument of interest on interest was derogatory for the employer, as the employer, according to the writer, was not punished but simply did not have to pay wages to someone who was not at the workplace. The writer questioned why the employer should be forced to pay for something it neither chose nor could influence. The writer also stated that Danish companies were exempt from employer contributions and that Denmark had a labor market contribution of 8 percent, which was deducted directly from employees' salaries to finance labor market policy. According to the writer, this meant that other employees essentially financed individuals who were not working. The writer argued that those referring to Denmark should therefore first advocate for the abolition of employer contributions and then that employees should pay for others' absences from work. The writer described the article as very poor. #arbetsmarknad #företagande #politiskdebatt (translated)
