Public affairs

In the afternoon, attendees could choose from several in-depth sessions. One zoomed in on the staffing industry: how do you combine continuity and flexibility without high costs? And how do you work smartly with your supplier in doing so?

Edward Norg, Randstad's operations director, gave a clear answer:
"We often only look at the rate, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The real profit is underneath: less turnover and absenteeism, lower induction costs, effective pool management - a flexible group of employees that moves with customer demand - and smart data analysis."

During the workshop on the ICT hiring segment, HeadFirst Group dived into the power of a dynamic tiering structure. Which data points are really decisive when managing suppliers? The answer lies in a strategic approach. "Hiring is not a matter of ad hoc decisions, but of data-driven optimization," says Sam van de Kreeke. "By formulating clear business objectives in advance and continuously testing them against relevant data - such as rates, conversion and turnaround times - you will attract the right suppliers and increase the effectiveness of your hiring policy," adds Boy Kies.

"With data, companies can spot fluctuations and trends early and respond accordingly," said Lex van der Giessen of recruitment agency Sonsbach and one of the invitees.

"Yet the current global economy and geopolitical situation do not make it any easier," he adds. "Despite increasingly deep insights, sudden disruptions can have a major impact - both economically and in the labor market."

The key? Agility. Van der Giessen "A flexible shell makes your organization more resilient. Companies that work exclusively with permanent employees have less clout. Flexible workers actually offer the opportunity to adjust quickly and attract the right people at the right time."

Jolanda ten Hoeve, procurement and contract manager at ECT Rotterdam: "It was a very fascinating event, especially because the presentations were largely based on interesting numerical underpinnings. That gave a nice factual picture of the developments in the labor market."

SOURCE: ZiPconomy

Thierry Aartsen's working visit to HeadFirst Group was valuable and provided scope for depth in the developments in the labor market and the zzp dossier. We appreciate the useful discussions that took place and will continue to use our data and knowledge in the future to contribute to a good and substantive public-society debate.contribute to a good and substantive public-social debate on the future of the labor market.

Although the objectives are widely supported, there is including from industry associations and market participants much criticism of the impact on the sector. Also hhe Advisory Committee on Regulatory Burden (ATR) also also pointed out in January to that the administrative burden and compliance costs are rising sharply. According to their calculations, the additional regulatory burden leads to an annual cost increase of 143 million euros for companies in the sector. This raises questions about the proportionality of the measures, the broad scope, regulatory burden and impact on the mediation sector.

The introduction of the WTTA dramatically changes the playing field for job placement services. The industry must consider:

• A mandatory admission scheme, whereby employment agencies, intermediaries and secondment agents are checked before they are allowed to operate.

• Mandatory security deposits, intended to prevent abuse, but at the same time are a barrier for smaller entrepreneurs.

• Intensified enforcement, with a greater role for the Labor Inspectorate and the new admitting authority (TI).

At the same time, the bill raises questions about feasibility, costs for companies and impact on the labor market. How to avoid that stricter rules lead, security deposits and higher implementation costs will have too much impact on bona fide companies, without actually improving the position of vulnerable migrant workers?

The discussion on the WTTA will continue to flare up in the coming months. In the week of March 24, the plenary debate will continue and in April 2025, the House of Representatives will receive a comprehensive letter from Van Hijum.

HeadFirst Group closely follows these developments and remains in conversation with MPs, policymakers and market participants

Do you have questions about the WTTA? Contact us here, at the bottom of the page, for advice.

The Chamber members were not surprised. They sense that there is unrest. This did get the conversation back on track a bit more.

We are committed to a fair, simple solution that gives self-employed workers freedom of choice and protects vulnerable workers. The government must stop criminalizing self-employed workers. The problem is not in the self-employed themselves, but in the fact that our system is unnecessarily complex.

If you make social premiums paid by default by contractors and simplify the system, that problem is solved. In other countries, such as Belgium and Scandinavia, social premiums are paid by default by contractors. In the Netherlands, the differences between contract types are far too great, making it unnecessarily complex.

The VBAR is yet another step in increasingly tightening labor relations, making it more difficult for the self-employed to be self-employed. This no longer fits the modern economy. Policymakers keep harking back to the labor law of 1907, but the labor market has completely changed in the meantime. We must accept that flexibility is here to stay.

Independent professionals are the lubricant of the economy. The flexible shell of the labor market is essential for innovation and agility. But if we continue to cling to outdated legislation, the Netherlands risks pricing itself out of the market. I worry about the VBAR: it feels like an oppressive, patronizing measure that does not do justice to the reality of entrepreneurship.

We came up with an action: #RuimteVoorZZP. The action is all about mobilizing the self-employed and their clients so that politicians see how important the self-employed are to the economy and innovation. We are calling on everyone to join in by posting a joint post on March 12, a 🍓 after their name and sharing personal stories. The goal is to influence legislation and ensure realistic and workable policies for the self-employed.

Labor law may be simpler, more effective and balanced for also more agility, innovation and customization, and thus addressing labor market tightness, labor productivity and business climate. This can be done by not setting government and collectivism on the one hand against the market and individualism on the other, but in a new balance with counterpowers with an independent position for labor law, detached from taxation and social security. Government activism starts where market activism stops and vice versa. The risk-rule reflex must be suppressed. In other words: through jurisdiction if possible, through legislation if necessary. Competition should be encouraged. So my additional advice would be to disentangle the privatized social security law from the labor contract. In addition, the 1945 preventive dismissal test should finally be abolished. Article 7:611 of the Civil Code, which regulates good employer and good employee relations, should be given a more emphatic key position. Bills such as Work Where You Want and Right to Inaccessibility then need not be tabled.

here is also a role for the polder, but certainly not an exclusive one. Precisely broader listening than at present is essential. Large groups seem to be systematically missed. For example, the government always assumes broad support for proposed measures because plans are made in consultation with social partners. But structurally it appears that this broad support is precisely not there. Proposals fail in the House of Representatives or meet with resistance from all sections of society. This raises questions about the quality of decision-making, including its diversity and inclusiveness. It is striking that these are precisely the themes that the SER likes to discuss.

The polder is now not the ears of the labor market and does not sufficiently represent all social actors. There seems to be a need for an independent body alongside the SER, with people from commercial practice, which uses technology for direct forms of decision-making, not tied to political parties or particular organizations. This to ensure attention to freedoms, individual responsibilities, conflicting interests and flexibility. In the process, collective bargaining agreements have really fallen through. The material scope of collective bargaining agreements should be drastically reduced to the so-called hard core of working conditions, i.e. wages, working and rest times, occupational health and safety, vacations and equal treatment. The AVV review framework requires modernization. Respresentativeness requirements should be increased and unambiguous. All employees should vote on CLAs instead of a constituency. A maxim could be that more than 25% in employer contributions and/or subsidies affects a union's independence. Again, systemic reform should be put on the agenda.

The Borstlap Commission report is strongly ideological and can be interpreted as yet another typical product of the public sector. One can also take a completely different view of the content and necessary measures, but the report contains that different view to a limited extent. With also all the reports of all the members of the Borstlap Commission in the news on an almost daily basis, the views of the Borstlap Commission should really be known enough by now. It would be good if precisely others than members of the Boot Commission, the Borstlap Commission and the SER (MLT) were allowed to tell their stories, perhaps by a group from the commercial sector, all the more so given the limited successes in the labor market over the past few decades and we now really want to move forward. Remember also that the Borstlap Commission was mostly not followed by the previous minister. As mentioned, for me, labor law in particular can be more balanced, effective and simple. In my opinion, this cannot be achieved by setting government and collectivism on the one hand against the market and individualism on the other, as has been the case in recent decades, but in a new balance with an independent position for labor law. In this, freedom, and its protection, is essential. The guarantee of fundamental freedoms creates the possibility of self-development and self-actualization for everyone. This includes a Red Tape Committee, which removes all duplicate and unreadable rules (also for dealing with labor shortages and the issue of labor productivity). A 30% 'admin burden' starts to become normal. This has really gotten terribly out of hand in recent years. This should be more of a priority than a multi-hour bonus.

I hope for less ideology and more substantive debate. Numerous issues are currently not easily measurable and should have been eminently so as the basis of the foundation of any analysis. Put objectivity and facts at the center. This will improve the quality of the debate and will have a positive effect on the quality and implementation of decisions.

On June 13, 2023, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal will consider whether Uber is an employer. The court states that more clarity is needed on the legal framework and decides to submit preliminary questions to the Supreme Court. This is because of the high social and legal importance of the issue.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal Is formulating questions for the Supreme Court on two key issues:

• The role of entrepreneurship in assessing employment relationships.

• The appropriateness of the AVV Act (Act on declaring collective agreements generally binding and non-binding) as the basis for the FNV's collective action. The Supreme Court's answers will influence not only this case but also future disputes about platform work.

I am optimistic. I think - and above all, I hope - that it will not be too bad. Working with the self-employed can and should be just fine. But I see the concerns growing more and more in the run-up to Jan. 1, 2025. So my appeal to clients is: keep your cool, stay calm and don't force people into salaried employment en masse (in short order). Don't use the lifting of the moratorium as an excuse to panic. Look at what can be done, arrange a job description neatly and in such a way that you can just keep working with self-employed people. Stick to the agreements you make with each other. I especially hope that we can keep that calm.

Yes, absolutely. There is a huge lack of innovation, and that is precisely what is desperately needed. We have to fundamentally rethink the position of the self-employed and our labor market as a whole. We have to admit that flex has gone too far in some places. But fixed is also very much fixed, and we need to discuss that too. So about flex and permanent. The outline agreement mentions two laws: the WTTA and the VBAR. The VVD supports the WTTA. The outline agreement does state that 'the cabinet is free to continue with the VBAR'. That is different from going ahead and agreeing to it blindly. I, as the VVD, am highly critical of that VBAR. And not only the VVD, but many industry associations, zzp organizations and scientists with me. That is why I also asked the cabinet: consider splitting the law, then you can already start working on the legal presumption based on an hourly rate for the basis of the labor market. And compulsory disability insurance is just enormously complicated. As the VVD, we think the opt-out is very important. Without that opt-out, a compulsory regulation cannot come about as far as we are concerned. But we have to look beyond that. It is time for a modern approach that really supports the self-employed, without forcing them into a straitjacket.

The cabinet finally began to move toward a soft landing, and the House supported it. I was really happy about that, though.

The concerns of self-employed people I receive daily in my mailbox. That touches me very much. People who work hard and are now losing assignments because organizations no longer dare to take them on. That does strike me as a low point.

A fundamental discussion about how we deal with the self-employed. In recent years, politicians have not sufficiently succeeded in answering the question of how we want to deal with the self-employed in the labor market. We have left that question unanswered. We need to have a serious conversation about a contract-independent system. That is a nice dot on the horizon and an important goal for me. And finally, I look forward specifically to January 21. Then we as VVD will organize a townhall session on the future of the self-employed, together with our political leader Dilan Yeşilgöz. I think it would be great to talk to a large group of self-employed people about how they envision their future.

*This interview is part of a series, in which in recent weeks the Public Affairs team has interviewed several experts closely involved in issues surrounding the self-employed and the labor market. The series consists of six interviews, which will be published in the coming weeks.