8
86). The reduction in personnel was estimated to be completed by the end of 1994. In
particular it was stated that “the age structure of professional officers should be changed
and adopted to better meet the needs of the defense forces of younger officers [own
translation]” (Prop. 1991/92:102, p.86). To adopt the age structure of the officers, it was
suggested that the reduction in personnel should be solved by collective agreement
arrangements, providing beneficial conditions for older personnel to take an early
retirement (SOU 1991: 87).
Via their employment contracts, the majority of military officers had strong
employment protection (“fullmaktsanställning”), which meant that they could not be
dismissed due to redundancy. The targeted early retirement offer was voluntary for the
individual to accept. The bill states that there was a need for extraordinary measures in
order to encourage individuals to retire voluntarily. The bill states that severance pay or
leave of absence with full pay could be used for those aged 55 or older. This means that
those military officers who did not accept the early retirement offer could be granted
leave of absence with full pay.
Table 1: Age groups and birth cohorts that were affected by the defense bill in 1992
(age as measured by December 31)
Birth cohort
Ages between 55 and 59 affected by the reform per birth cohor t
55
56
57
58
59
1931
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1932
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1933
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1934
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1935
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1936
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1937
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1938
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1939
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Note: The defense bill was taken by the parliament in February 1992 and the reform was implemented thereafter in
the course of 1992. We view 1992 as an implementation year, which means that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly
whether or not those born in 1933 should be regarded as affected by the reform (they turned 59 in 1992). Therefore
the year “1992” is shaded in light grey.
The previous defense bill in 1986 (prop. 1986/87:95) declared that the workforce in the
Armed Forces were undersized. Contrary to the subsequent bill, it stated that more
recruits were needed and early retirement needed to be reduced. There is no statement
regarding rejuvenation or a need for structural changes as regards to the personnel,
except the requirement that the personnel were to be better trained.
