Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Uten fagforening er det vanskeligere å forhandle lønn og tariffavtale med sjefen. - Without a union it is more difficult to negotiate pay and the collective agreement with the boss.

Uten fagforening = without (a) union / without union representation in a general sense.
- No article is used because we’re talking about the concept in general, not one specific union.
- Norwegian often drops the article after uten when the meaning is general:
  - uten arbeid – without work
  - uten bil – without a car (in general, as a possession)
Uten en fagforening would sound more like without a (particular) union, focusing on one concrete union.

In this sentence, the general idea “without a union (in your workplace)” is intended, so uten fagforening is more natural.

What is the function of «det» in «er det vanskeligere»?

Here, det is a dummy subject (also called an expletive pronoun), similar to “it” in English in sentences like:

It is hard to negotiate…

Norwegian often uses det as a subject when the real subject is an infinitive phrase that comes later:

Det er vanskelig å forhandle. – It is hard to negotiate.

You cannot say «Uten fagforening er vanskeligere å forhandle…» because Norwegian requires a subject in that position; that subject is det.

Why do we say «vanskeligere» here? How is the comparative formed?

Vanskeligere is the comparative form of the adjective vanskelig (difficult):

Positive: vanskelig – difficult
Comparative: vanskeligere – more difficult / harder
Superlative: vanskeligst – most difficult / hardest

The usual rule for many adjectives is:

Positive + -ere = comparative
Positive + -est = superlative

So:

billig – billigere – billigst (cheap)
viktig – viktigere – viktigst (important)

You can say mer vanskelig instead of vanskeligere, but vanskeligere is shorter and more common.

Why do we need «å» in «å forhandle»?

Å is the infinitive marker, like “to” in English in to negotiate.

After many adjectives like vanskelig, lett, umulig, etc., when they describe an action, you typically use å + infinitive:

Det er vanskelig å forhandle. – It is hard to negotiate.
Det er lett å forstå. – It is easy to understand.

Without å, the sentence is ungrammatical:

❌ Det er vanskelig forhandle.
✅ Det er vanskelig å forhandle.

Can you explain «forhandle lønn»? Should it be «forhandle om lønn»?

Both are used, but there is a nuance:

forhandle lønn – using lønn directly as the object
forhandle om lønn – using the preposition om (“about”)

In everyday speech and writing:

forhandle lønn and forhandle om lønn basically mean the same: to negotiate salary.
With tariffavtale, you’re more likely to see:
- forhandle tariffavtale or
- forhandle fram en tariffavtale (negotiate and reach a collective agreement).

The sentence uses the shorter, object-style pattern: å forhandle lønn og tariffavtale.

What exactly is a «tariffavtale», and how is it different from «lønn»?

lønn = salary / pay / wages
- What you personally receive as payment for your work.
tariffavtale = collective agreement
- A contract between a union and an employer (or employer organization).
- It usually regulates: pay scales, working hours, overtime compensation, holidays, etc.

So in the sentence:

lønn = the concrete salary level you negotiate for yourself.
tariffavtale = the broader, formal agreement that sets the framework for salary and working conditions.

Why is there no article before «lønn» or «tariffavtale»?

Norwegian often skips the article when talking about things in a general or abstract way, especially in certain verb–object combinations.

Here:

forhandle lønn = negotiate salary (as a general type of thing)
forhandle tariffavtale = negotiate a collective agreement (as a general procedure)

You could say:

forhandle en lønn – negotiate a salary
forhandle en tariffavtale – negotiate a (specific) collective agreement

but this would sound more like focusing on a single, specific agreement or offer. In the sentence, the focus is on the activity in general, so the bare noun is natural.

Why is it «med sjefen» and not «med en sjef»?

med sjefen = with the boss (the one specific boss you have at your workplace)
med en sjef = with a boss (some boss, not specified)

In context, an employee normally has one particular boss, so using the definite form sjefen is natural and expected.

Using en sjef would shift the meaning towards something more hypothetical or general:

Det er vanskelig å forhandle lønn med en sjef.
– It is hard to negotiate salary with a boss (any boss, in theory).

What are the genders and definite forms of «fagforening», «lønn», «tariffavtale», and «sjef»?

All four are common gender (en-words):

en fagforening – a union
- Definite singular: fagforeningen
- Plural: fagforeninger / fagforeningene
en lønn – a salary / pay
- Definite singular: lønna or lønnen (both used; lønna is more colloquial)
- Plural (rare in practice): lønner / lønnene
en tariffavtale – a collective agreement
- Definite singular: tariffavtalen
- Plural: tariffavtaler / tariffavtalene
en sjef – a boss
- Definite singular: sjefen
- Plural: sjefer / sjefene

In the sentence, only sjefen appears in definite form, because it refers to your specific boss.

Could the word order be «Det er vanskeligere å forhandle lønn og tariffavtale med sjefen uten fagforening.»?

Yes, that is also grammatical and natural.

Uten fagforening er det vanskeligere …
- Fronts «Uten fagforening» to emphasize the condition: When you don’t have a union…
Det er vanskeligere … uten fagforening.
- More neutral emphasis; the “without a union” part comes last.

Both are correct. The sentence given simply highlights the “without a union” situation by putting it first.

Is «fagforening» the only word for “union”, or is «fagforbund» different?

They are related but not identical:

fagforening – usually a local union at a workplace or in a limited area.
fagforbund – often a larger union organization, grouping several fagforeninger under one umbrella.

In everyday language, people often just say fagforening when talking about “having a union” at work, so Uten fagforening… is the normal phrasing here.

Is there anything special about the preposition «uten» in this sentence?

Uten simply means “without” and is used like English without:

uten fagforening – without a union
uten mat – without food
uten hjelp – without help

Two points to notice:

Article dropping: after uten, Norwegian often omits the article when speaking generally:
- uten bil, uten jobb, uten fagforening.
Position: an adverbial like uten fagforening can be moved around:
- Uten fagforening er det vanskeligere …
- Det er vanskeligere … uten fagforening.

Both positions are fine; the choice affects emphasis, not grammar.