[AlexTWithBeard]

Well, the biggest argument against it will be a need to find and train a temporary replacement for the person. For many positions finding and training alone may take longer than that.

And then what do you do with the replacement once the original guy is back?

Overall though, I would agree that benefits overweight potential problems.

[52-6F-62]

I imagine the situation would be quite similar to how we handle maternity/paternity leave here in Canada, and it's rarely a problem.

Once its an accepted pattern, there are fewer surprises, and most people are understanding.

[Tor3]

Exactly. It was briefly mentioned in the article too. Sweden already has a mature maternity/paternity system in place, and companies handle those just fine (in most cases, if they're doing any kind of planning and thinking). Thus they can handle these kinds of leaves as well - it's minor when you compare to the number of maternity/paternity leaves, there's much more of the latter. And (as it was mentioned in the article), it is possible to say 'no' to the leave if the employee's position is crucial (presumably there are definitions for what the actually means). Or hold it off for some time. Unlike with maternity/paternity leaves.

I wish there was something like this in my country as well.

[rightbyte]

The employeer should have a "replacement" ready anyway since people might also quit. Preparing for the pssobility of this or eg. paternity leave is a good anti-employee lock-in meassure for skilled workers.

A possible argument against the system is that there are many temp working contracts to fill in for the fulltimers on leave.

[thatguyagain]

Some people can choose to work 50% instead of a 100% leave, so there are ways to solve it.