---
title: "The construction union is after the entrepreneurs | Katariina Komulainen, Tia Kiiskinen | Negotiator 206"
summary: "Katariina Komulainen, business director at Euro Work, and Tia Kiiskinen, growth director at Yrittäjän Tili ja Laki, join Sami Miettinen in August 2023. The episode is about what happened on Finnish building sites in June 2023, when people working through invoicing services were removed from the sites — and why traditional sole traders went out with them. This write-up sets out the four forms of entrepreneurship, the motive behind the YEL pension reform and the co-operative model, and marks what in the episode is a structural argument and what is an assessment of the other side's intentions. The episode was made in commercial collaboration with Euro Work, and no trade union representative is present."
datePublished: 2023-08-09
dateModified: 2023-08-09
originalLang: en
section: economy
sections: ["economy","society"]
authors: ["Sami Miettinen"]
tags: ["Neuvottelija","EP206","Yrittäjyys","Kevytyrittäjyys","Osuuskunta","YEL","Rakennusala","Työmarkkinat","Katariina Komulainen","Tia Kiiskinen"]
canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/ai/ep206-rakennusliitto-yrittajien-kimpussa-komulainen-kiiskinen/
---
# The construction union is after the entrepreneurs | Katariina Komulainen, Tia Kiiskinen | Negotiator 206

# The construction union is after the entrepreneurs | Katariina Komulainen, Tia Kiiskinen | Negotiator 206

> **Summary:**
> Katariina Komulainen, business director at Euro Work, and Tia Kiiskinen, growth director at Yrittäjän Tili ja Laki, join Sami Miettinen in August 2023. The episode is about what happened on Finnish building sites in June 2023, when people working through invoicing services were removed from the sites — and why traditional sole traders went out with them. This write-up sets out the four forms of entrepreneurship, the motive behind the YEL pension reform and the co-operative model, and marks what in the episode is a structural argument and what is an assessment of the other side's intentions. The episode was made in commercial collaboration with Euro Work, and no trade union representative is present.

## A note on reading this, and on interests

The recording is from **9 August 2023**. The episode takes an open position, and four things
are worth reading before the content.

- **Commercial collaboration.** The episode was made **in commercial collaboration with
  Euro Work**, and this is stated aloud at the start. Euro Work is a co-operative that sells
  precisely the model defended in the episode. The other guest represents accounting and
  legal services for entrepreneurs. **Both guests therefore have a commercial interest in
  the conclusion they are arguing for.** That does not make the arguments wrong, but it has
  to be read alongside them.
- **The other side is not present.** The episode assesses the actions and motives of the
  Construction Trade Union and of SAK, the trade union confederation, and no representative
  of either is heard. This write-up marks separately the places where something is an
  **assessment of the other side's intentions** rather than an observation.
- **The host is an interested party too.** Sami Miettinen describes his own holding company
  structure and the fact that he has no interest in accruing a Finnish earnings-related
  pension, because his pension accrued in a fund during twelve years in London.
- **The source.** A MacWhisper transcript (Finnish, 406 cues). Proper nouns and the YEL
  terminology were corrected separately. Some of the episode's broader generalisations are
  not relayed here, because they do not carry analytically.

---

## 1. What happened on the building sites in June 2023

This is the episode's factual base and it is worth separating from the interpretations.

- **The Construction Trade Union issued a recommendation** that the use of light
  entrepreneurs on sites should be avoided, and the largest builders put it into practice.
  Implementation, according to Komulainen, was mostly complete **by the end of June 2023**.
- **The word "light entrepreneur" is imprecise, and that is part of the problem.** Finnish
  labour law does not recognise a light entrepreneur: you are either an entrepreneur or an
  employee. In practice these are **users of invoicing service companies' software** — the
  service, in Kiiskinen's account, sells a piece of IT software in the middle, not labour.
- **The collateral damage is what the episode is named after.** On site, people cannot
  always tell a co-operative from a light entrepreneur from a sole trader. The message came
  through as "light entrepreneurs may no longer be used", and **traditional sole traders
  were kicked off the sites along with them.**
- **The problem did not go away.** The same invoicing companies still offer the sole trader
  option. What was left, Komulainen says, was a choice between a sole tradership and a
  limited company — the latter carrying entirely different costs and considerably more
  liability.

**The cyclical backdrop.** New construction has **halved**, layoffs have started and
unemployment follows quickly. Sites have been suspended outright. Repair construction has
held up better. On bankruptcies Komulainen says plainly that this is a situation not seen
**since the 1990s** — and that fewer builders went under in 2008. The guests line up with
**Petri Roininen** from the preceding episode (EP202): two units down, then a shallow
recovery.

## 2. The Ukraine question, and how it should be read

This is the episode's most sensitive section, and it needs a distinction.

**What is conceded.** Both guests concede that the system had been misused: light
entrepreneurship had been used to avoid employer obligations, pricing was in places clearly
below the going rate, and the people doing the work did not always know on what terms.
Kiiskinen also raises the case covered in the Yle story of a person who **had not
understood they were a light entrepreneur**. None of this is played down in the episode.

**What is claimed.** The guests' main claim is that most cases were not like that. In their
account the Ukrainian workers knew they were operating as entrepreneurs, felt they were
earning well — the story, according to Kiiskinen, reported them earning **better than the
collective agreement** — and left when the model stopped being profitable.

**What the argument is.** Komulainen's question is one of principle and is worth reading as
it stands:

> What reason would these Ukrainians have to pay pension insurance into Finland? They are
> returning to Ukraine, they are refugees from a war, they want to work. We want to help
> them — why do we at the same time want to make doing that work harder?

Miettinen attaches his own parallel: he himself has no interest in accruing a Finnish
pension, because his pension accrued in London. The argument is therefore about the **tax
wedge and free will**, not about protection being unnecessary.

**What is not in the episode.** The other side's reasoning. The trade union position — that
work moving outside the employment relationship weakens conditions across the sector, and
that the bargaining position is asymmetric when one party has just arrived in the country
and does not speak the language — is not put by anyone in the episode. That is this
write-up's observation, not the episode's.

**What is marked as assessment.** The guests say the Construction Trade Union treats an
Estonian entrepreneur differently from an Uzbek one, and they describe it as a change over
time: by 2023 the Estonian is becoming acceptable, which was not the case before. **This is
an assessment of another organisation's attitude based on their experience, not a
documented observation.** The same applies to the episode's claim that the unions act this
way because "their work is running out otherwise" — that is a **prediction about motive**,
not an observation.

What can be engaged with without speculating about motive is the public statement by SAK's
**Saana Siekkinen** that people arriving in Finland on a work permit cannot become
entrepreneurs. One can disagree with that on the argument, and in the episode they do.

## 3. The four forms of entrepreneurship

The clearest teaching section in the episode, and it is usable without taking a side in the
dispute.

| Form | Core | The guests' observation |
|---|---|---|
| **Light entrepreneur** (invoicing service) | no business ID; invoicing runs through the service | Not its own category in labour law. Komulainen compares it to handing over an invoice with a mark on it fifteen years ago. |
| **Sole trader** | you do the work alone; money, taxes and **liabilities** run through the person | Komulainen says the co-operative gains members whose affairs went so badly as sole traders that they can no longer set up a limited company. |
| **Co-operative** | the member does the work and agrees the terms; the co-operative handles the administration | Euro Work's model. The core principle of entrepreneurship survives: you agree your own work and manage yourself. |
| **Limited company** | the entrepreneur as owner | Costs and administration are large: accountant, marketing, sales, regulatory filings — and the billable work slips to second place. |

Komulainen's argument for the co-operative is precisely that administrative burden: *if you
are a damn good carpenter, do that work and agree the terms for it* — someone else handles
the rest. This is also where the **commercial interest is at its most direct** (see the note
above).

## 4. Who is an entrepreneur? — the episode's analytical high point

Kiiskinen's section on the definition of entrepreneurship is the strongest content in the
episode, because it requires taking nobody's side.

The lay assumption is that an entrepreneur is someone with a business ID who invoices for
their work. It is not so:

- **You can have a business ID and still be an employee.**
- **You can lack a business ID and still be an entrepreneur.**
- In light entrepreneur cases the split can run roughly **half and half**: some are counted
  as entrepreneurs, some as wage earners.
- In some cases **the invoicing service has been held to be the employer** — which strikes
  Kiiskinen as absurd, since the service sells a piece of software in the middle.

And then an example that shows how slippery the line is: a sole trader in haulage sells
their service and takes goods from A to B as they see fit. If the contract is changed so
that the work is done **at the same time every week** or **with the client's equipment**,
the definition of entrepreneurship no longer holds and the person risks suddenly being an
employee. Miettinen adds the number of clients: an entrepreneur with one client is easier to
read as a **disguised employment relationship**.

From which follows the sharpest question in the episode, and Kiiskinen asks it:

> If we really apply that stamp — that you have too few clients and take instructions from
> them — **how many of Finland's solo entrepreneurs would meet the definition of
> entrepreneurship?**

The answer in the episode is "we would have no entrepreneurs", and a figure is attached to
it: **93 per cent of Finland's entrepreneurs are micro entrepreneurs.**

## 5. YEL — motive, mechanism and an alternative

The episode's second hard section, and it is structurally clear.

**The motive.** Kiiskinen states it bluntly: the government's motive for changing YEL is not
to improve entrepreneurs' security but that the **YEL fund is empty** — the figure given in
the episode is about **400 million euros a year in deficit**, because the system has never
been funded. From which follows the question of where the money comes from, and her answer
is: the entrepreneur's pocket. *This is an interpretation of motive, not the official
rationale.*

**The mechanism.** A rise in the **YEL income base** is demanded so that it corresponds to
the actual work input: if you work 60 hours a week, the income base should correspond to
the pay you would earn for it. Kiiskinen says this does not in practice happen that way,
but the principle has been stated.

**Who it hits.** Large companies do not suffer from this; **micro entrepreneurs do.** And
attached to that is the episode's most precise single claim, which is also the easiest to
check:

> Even if you double the minimum YEL, **it still does not show up anywhere** — you get only
> the minimum pension all the same. You have to raise the contribution a great deal before
> it makes any difference.

**The alternative calculation.** The comparison put in the episode is rough but
illustrative: **a thousand a month for 40 years at a five per cent return** produces,
according to Kiiskinen, a good pension and something left over for the next generation. In
YEL the same money is not inheritable. *This is a calculation on a return assumption and not
a comparison against YEL's insurance-type benefits* — YEL also covers incapacity and
survivors' pensions, which the episode does not address.

**An alternative model.** Miettinen's proposal is based on his own experience in Britain:
the employer pays part and the employee pays part **without a tax wedge**, the fund
compounds, and taxation happens at the point of withdrawal. His version of how it would fit
Finland is a **voluntary transition**: the old YEL stays for those who find it works, with a
locked-in pension savings vehicle alongside it.

**Criticism of the lobby.** Kiiskinen says she is disappointed in **Suomen Yrittäjät**, the
entrepreneurs' federation, for having helped create the package. She agrees the system needs
reform — but not like this; it should be torn down and rebuilt. As an aside it is noted that
**Mikro- ja yksinyrittäjät ry** was born out of disagreement on exactly this point.

## 6. The co-operative seen through left-wing eyes — the best exchange in the episode

Miettinen puts a question that turns the whole conversation around, and it is worth reading
whole: if, in Marxist terms, the surplus value of labour belongs entirely to the worker and
the owner of capital extracts it — **is there not then something in the co-operative model
that the left should like too?**

Komulainen's reaction is the most honest moment in the episode:

> Odd question. Now that you have put it that way — **yes** — and I have never thought
> about this like that, because a right-leaning outlook pushes you to think otherwise.

And then an analysis that holds up: co-operative activity is **member-driven**, a
co-operative's purpose is not to produce millions for its owners, and in Finland the
co-operative has historically been a tool of the left rather than the right. What is new is
that in this case the members are **all entrepreneurs** selling their own skills.

This section is the episode's best precisely because it is the only place where a guest
changes their view mid-conversation.

## 7. A worked example: a facade repair

The episode does something rare: it runs the model through one real transaction. Miettinen
is a shareholder in a housing company on Kalevankatu, and the building had just had a facade
repair. How would the same job have gone if bought from a co-operative entrepreneur?

1. The worker comes on site and **agrees the work and the price directly with the client** —
   the example in the episode is rendering, on the order of **6,000 euros plus VAT**
   depending on the wall.
2. A written contract is made; the co-operative and the member are both aware of it, because
   the **ownership principle** sits behind it.
3. **The invoice comes from the co-operative**, not from the worker personally.
4. If payment does not arrive, the co-operative may have a **debt collection service** and
   other support — plus practical help when, for example, the worker does not speak Finnish
   and scaffolding use has to be agreed with the site.

This is also where the model's added value over a bare sole tradership is most concretely
visible: **contract risk and collection move to the co-operative.**

## 8. Does Finland hate entrepreneurs

The closing part is about attitudes, and it works on two levels.

**Education and culture.** Both guests describe a generational experience in which school
steered people towards wage work: the careers adviser suggested teaching, no help was
available for entrepreneurship, and personal finance was not taught. Miettinen recounts once
proposing to **Jyrki Katainen** that every Finn should automatically be issued a business
ID; he concedes it goes "too far", but Komulainen picks it up: light entrepreneurship was in
practice exactly that — **the personal identity number working as a business ID**.

**Scaremongering in both directions.** Kiiskinen's observation is symmetrical and is the best
part of this section: people are frightened about entrepreneurship as much in one direction
(*you will have to invoice this much or you are bankrupt*) as away from it. There are
bogeymen on both sides.

**The question left open.** Komulainen's answer to the title question is that the country is
not full of hatred for entrepreneurs but of **"the wrong kind of entrepreneur"** — and that
nobody has a clear picture of what the right kind is. She puts it pointedly: you are allowed
to get rich on the lottery and you are allowed to get rich in sport, but not as an
entrepreneur.

## 9. A recession is an opportunity — the only optimistic section

The final part is deliberately hopeful, and it is framed without a doomsday scenario.

- Miettinen does not expect a deep recession: the central bank can cut rates, and the guests
  do not expect rates to rise uncontrollably. **A few large bodies will come out of
  construction** — and mid-sized ones are appearing daily.
- Komulainen's view is that a recession **opens doors for flexible work**: the diligent and
  skilled will find work, and an operator with a light cost structure adapts faster than a
  large one.
- Her most concrete observation is about young people: fifteen-year-olds no longer take a
  summer job at a large company but set up their own car-washing service. *This is her
  observation from her own circle, not a statistic.*

## Claims presented as claims

- The assessment that the Construction Trade Union treats Estonian and Uzbek entrepreneurs
  differently.
- The assessment that the unions' motive is their own work running out.
- The interpretation that the motive for the YEL reform is the fund's deficit rather than
  entrepreneurs' security.
- The assessment that most foreign-background entrepreneurs in construction operate
  knowingly and voluntarily as entrepreneurs.
- The calculation in which a thousand a month for 40 years at five per cent beats YEL.

## What stays with you

1. **Removing light entrepreneurs from the sites took sole traders down with them**, because
   on site nobody can draw the line. This is the episode's most concrete claim and it is
   checkable.
2. **The definition of entrepreneurship is not settled by a business ID.** The same person
   can be a different thing in the eyes of different systems, and the line is drawn case by
   case.
3. **Doubling the minimum YEL does not show up in the pension.** If that holds, it is the
   single most important number in the reform debate.
4. **The co-operative is an ideologically two-handed model** — and the episode's best moment
   is the one where a guest concedes it mid-sentence.

## How the episode runs

- **00:00** — Guests Katariina Komulainen and Tia Kiiskinen
- **00:41** — Serial entrepreneur backgrounds from Saudi Arabia to the Baltics
- **01:16** — Being a woman in construction
- **03:13** — New construction has halved, layoffs have started
- **04:21** — Construction firms going under as in the 1990s
- **05:34** — The Yle story on Ukrainians and pressure from the union
- **06:03** — Light entrepreneurs removed from the sites in June
- **08:23** — The tax wedge, the pension wedge and free will
- **08:59** — Why would a Ukrainian pay pension contributions to Finland
- **10:43** — Four models: light entrepreneur, sole trader, co-operative, limited company
- **12:29** — What Euro Work does as a co-operative
- **13:58** — An SAK director's tweet about foreign entrepreneurs
- **16:15** — An Estonian will do, an Uzbek will not
- **17:48** — Who counts as an entrepreneur in the eyes of YEL
- **19:59** — 93 per cent of entrepreneurs are micro entrepreneurs
- **20:29** — Tia's column on discrimination against entrepreneurs
- **22:11** — The unions shake the ground because the work is running out
- **23:45** — Sami's holding company and the hybrid model
- **24:43** — School teaches wage work, not entrepreneurship
- **25:36** — A business ID for every Finn
- **26:40** — YEL felt like an ineffective system
- **28:32** — How many unemployed entrepreneurs do you know
- **30:47** — A worked example: a facade repair bought from a co-operative entrepreneur
- **33:37** — The co-operative seen through left-wing eyes
- **35:31** — The new government and the YEL reform
- **36:09** — The YEL fund is 400 million in deficit
- **38:14** — A thousand a month for 40 years: YEL or investing
- **40:36** — The English model: pension saving without the tax wedge
- **42:12** — Scaremongering about entrepreneurship in both directions
- **43:28** — Does Finland hate entrepreneurs
- **44:14** — A recession is an opportunity for small entrepreneurs
- **46:25** — Closing words and the subscriber-side continuation