Finnish parliament workplace harassment is reported by 10 out of 66 surveyed parliamentary employees, according to a recent inquiry. The investigation reveals accounts of verbal sexual harassment, belittling speech, homophobic comments, and threatening behavior from members of parliament directed at their staff. These findings challenge the image of the Eduskunta as a model workplace and raise questions about accountability within Finland's highest political institution.
The Scope of the Problem
A survey sent to 188 employees working for parliamentary groups received 66 responses. Of those, 10 individuals reported encountering inappropriate behavior from MPs. The types of misconduct varied: two people reported workplace bullying, two reported sexual harassment, four reported derogatory or offensive speech, and six reported other forms of inappropriate conduct. Respondents could report multiple types of incidents. Notably, a majority—56 respondents—said they had not personally faced any inappropriate behavior, and none reported being subjected to physical violence.
Specific Allegations and a Threatening Quote
The accounts provided to the survey are specific and troubling. One respondent detailed experiencing verbal sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment has been verbal, commenting on appearance by two male MPs, who are not in my own parliamentary group," the assistant reported. This same person also described facing belittlement and shouting when they made a mistake or things did not proceed as the MP wished.
Another incident highlighted a deeply inappropriate use of authority within the parliament's own sauna facilities, a common space for informal discussion in Finnish political culture. An assistant recounted a threatening comment from an MP. "The MP demanded that speeches made in the sauna must not be quoted publicly 'or you'll be taken behind the sauna and shot'," the assistant said. While the assistant did not consider the comment a serious threat given the context, they still deemed it wholly inappropriate.
A Culture of Psychological Pressure
Beyond individual incidents, some responses pointed to a broader, systemic issue of psychological pressure and an imbalance of power. One assistant provided a stark analysis, distinguishing the parliament from more extreme workplaces but acknowledging pervasive problems. "I assess that physical and sexual violence do not occur in parliament. Instead, he highlights psychological violence and bullying," the report states, paraphrasing the respondent.
The assistant elaborated on this point. "Psychological violence/bullying is certainly carried out by some representatives probably in the same way as in any other workplace where some people do. I know this from my own and several co-workers'/ex-co-workers' experience. Such supervisors either do not understand or do not want to understand what position an assistant is in compared to representatives, or in the worst case, even enjoy the higher position in the wrong way." This sentiment underscores a critical power dynamic where assistants, who are essential to the functioning of the Eduskunta, feel vulnerable and without recourse.
The Challenge of Accountability
The survey responses crossed party lines, indicating the issue is not confined to one political group. One respondent stated that a long-standing National Coalition Party MP had spoken to them about improper subjects. Another reported having to listen to homophobic speech from an MP. A significant concern raised by some respondents is the perceived lack of consequences for MPs' actions. The report notes that some respondents believe no limits can be set on the behavior of MPs, and the threshold for intervening is high.
This lack of clear accountability mechanisms for misconduct between MPs and their staff is a central problem. While workplaces across Finland are subject to strict occupational safety and health regulations, including protections against harassment, the unique status of MPs as elected officials can create a gray area. The assistants are employed by the parliamentary groups, not directly by the individual MP, which can complicate reporting lines and responsibility.
Historical Context and the Finnish Political Workplace
The Eduskunta has long prided itself on transparency and consensus-based politics. However, like many traditional institutions built on hierarchical structures, it has faced increasing scrutiny over its internal workplace culture in recent years. The global #MeToo movement prompted some discussion in Finnish politics, but major public scandals have been relatively rare compared to some other European legislatures. This survey suggests underlying issues may be more prevalent than public discourse indicates.
Finnish employment law is strong, and unions are powerful. Parliamentary assistants are typically well-educated and unionized, which should, in theory, offer protection. Yet the reported experiences show that legal and theoretical protections can break down when faced with the immense power and influence of a sitting parliamentarian, on whom an assistant's career prospects may indirectly depend.
Implications for Democratic Function
A toxic work environment in the heart of Finnish democracy has implications that extend beyond the well-being of staff. If assistants fear retribution for speaking up about minor errors or feel psychologically pressured, it can hinder their ability to perform their duties effectively. These staffers are crucial for research, communication, and policy preparation; their compromised work environment can indirectly affect the quality of legislative work and governance.
The use of spaces like the parliamentary sauna for issuing threats is particularly symbolic. The sauna is a culturally significant space of equality and open discussion. Its corruption into a venue for coercive silence represents a profound violation of Finnish norms. The quote about being "taken behind the sauna and shot" weaponizes a cultural institution to enforce secrecy, which is antithetical to the principles of an open democracy.
The Path Forward and Unanswered Questions
The survey, by its nature, captures a snapshot and relies on self-reporting. The fact that 56 respondents reported no misconduct is important, but it does not negate the experiences of the 10 who did. The central question now is how the Eduskunta will respond. Will there be an official inquiry or a review of the protocols for reporting harassment between MPs and staff? Will party whips address this internally, or will the matter be handled by the parliament's administration?
Previous attempts to discuss behavioral codes for MPs have often been met with resistance, framed as an infringement on the democratic mandate and freedom of speech of elected officials. However, the freedom of speech of an MP does not extend to creating a harassing work environment for employees. Establishing clear, independent, and safe channels for reporting misconduct without career-ending repercussions for staff is a necessary step.
The Finnish parliament is often looked to as a model of stability and transparency. This survey reveals cracks in that foundation, suggesting that the culture within the marble halls of Mannerheimintie may need the same rigorous scrutiny applied to the policies made there. The well-being of parliamentary staff is not a side issue; it is integral to the health of the democracy they serve. As one assistant's testimony makes clear, when those in power enjoy their status "in the wrong way," everyone loses.