Bill of Hijum dampens flexibilisation for the labor market, but employers have ‘worries’

The long -awaited, radical renovation of the Dutch labor market has come another step closer. Minister Eddy Van Hijum (NSC, Social Affairs) sent a bill to the Lower House on Monday that the further flexibilisation of work must stop. If the relationship between flexible and fixed jobs is better balanced, workers get more ‘certainty’ and employers more ‘maneuverability’, the minister argues in the proposal. In addition, the new law must contribute to a « future -proof » social security and a better competitive economy.

The reform has long been in the pipeline: in recent years, numerous advice has been argued for reducing the advanced flexibilisation of the labor market. Such as the influential report from 2020 of a committee led by former top official Hans Borstlap, on which Van Hijum largely based the bill.

From Flexbaan to Flexbaan

Flexibilisation has yielded large dividing lines between a highly educated top layer of the labor market and a vulnerable bottom, in which workers are forced to go from Flexbaan to Flexbaan.

The Council of State was critical last fall About the lack of fundamental reforms on the labor market, and warned that intended measures would have « only limited » effect. Now that the bill is finally there, the question is: is it indeed going to disguise the labor relations? And has enough been done to meet employers who have become accustomed to a flexible shell with which they can quickly adjust their business to changing circumstances?

According to the bill, the zero -hour contracts will disappear, with the exception of the side jobs for young people up to the age of 18, students and students. Instead, there will be contracts in which a minimum and a maximum number of hours are agreed. In this way, employees get more control over their schedule and more certainty about their income. « That is quite radical for employers, because on -call workers will now receive a minimum wage, whether or not they have work or not, » says Johan Zwemmer, lawyer and university lecturer at the University of Amsterdam. Because industrial relations become a lot more ‘inflexible’, employers, suspects swimmer, will look for other solutions to maintain a flexible skin.

Revolving door

Another construction must also be a thing of the past under the new law: employees must not be ‘trapped’ in a ‘revolving door construction’, where they will repeatedly work at the same employer. Now employers can offer an annual contract three times in a row, after which a ‘break’ of six months must be inserted before an employee can be offered a subsequent contract. That period goes to five years.

Professor of Employment Law Ruben Houweling of Erasmus University Rotterdam doubts whether many employers will tempt to offer more permanent contracts. He points out that the term was previously extended from three to six months, so that the revolving door is not used much anymore, excluding a few sectors. « You can therefore ask yourself whether a generic measure is suitable for this, or whether the collective bargaining table had been a better place for a few specific sectors. »

Enforcement is important, because employers who deal with employees less well are usually not impressed by legislation

Furthermore, temporary work with the new law must become more secure. The period in which temporary workers can be dismissed from the start of their agreement is shortened from one and a half to one year. People who work somewhere through an employment agency are also entitled to the same employment conditions, such as equal wages, if people who have been appointed directly by the employer. According to the experts, the same difficulty plays a role in this. Swimmer thinks that if hiring employees through employment agencies becomes more expensive, who will look for other solutions to continue to operate flexibly. “Then they might look at contractingwhere customers outsource entire work processes and they do not have to pay equal wages, « says Zwemmer.

And there comes the importance of well -focused enforcement. « The group of employers who deal with employees less well is usually not so impressed by laws and regulations, » says Houweling. « And many people who are stuck in flex courts are not so mild that they can easily claim and cash in on their rights. That is why it is really important to look carefully where and how you will maintain this new law, » says Houweling.

‘Fixed’ is no less fixed

All in all, despite their comments, the bill is a good way to curb the flexible work, according to Houweling and Swimmer, because many different buttons are running for this. But at the same time it has also been forgotten to run the button of the permanent contract, which is relatively expensive and perhaps too fixed in the Netherlands due to high tax and social costs. Such an integral approach was central to the report of the Borstlap committee, of which the swimmer was a part.

« The Borstlap committee advised to make the permanent contract more flexible under certain circumstances, but that part did not end up in this bill, » says Zwemmer. « Flex is becoming less flex, » said Houweling, « but because it is probably no less fixed, it does raise the question of whether that balance is still there. »

Swimmer: « Employers not only enter into flex contracts because it is possible to save costs. But in view of their business model, often dependent on fluctuations in the market, it is often not possible to work with permanent contracts for an indefinite period. That is the labor market of the twenty-first century. »

Employers’ organizations also signal that action is mainly on the flex side. VNO-NCW and MKB Nederland let them know that although they think it is important that people with flexible contracts get more certainty, employers’ organizations are ‘worried’. The agreements that employers have to offer more maneuverability have not yet been converted into legislation, they find disappointed.

To share

Mail the editors