Public affairs

The approval of the House of Representatives marks the next step in the legislative process. The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. When this will take place is not yet known. A final implementation date is not yet known, but Minister Van Hijum (SZW) previously promised to send a letter to the Lower House in April with more information about the implementation date and timeline.

The introduction of the WTTA marks a comprehensive step in the regulation of organizations operating in the world of employment mediation in the Netherlands. It is now up to the Senate to further assess the bill and decide on its final introduction.

Should there be any questions about the WTTA, please contact us at publicaffairs@headfirst.nl

Report Regeldruk SZW-domain analysis and recommendations | Report | Adviescollege toetsing regeldruk

It was also made clear during the debate that the Netherlands has agreements in place with the EU through the 2022 Recovery and Resilience Plan, which explicitly addresses tackling false self-employment. DENK MP Ergin asked explicitly whether the VBAR is mentioned by name in this plan, or whether alternatives such as Aartsen's proposal could possibly also meet the Brussels conditions. Minister Van Hijum indicated that he is looking into this, but at the same time stressed that changes to the agreements with the European Commission are limited. This ultimately involves €600 million.

The Vereniging Zelfstandigen Nederland (VZN) responded critically to the debate. According to VZN, the problem with the VBAR remains that it mainly focuses on "repair" and codification, without actually offering a structural solution to the underlying problem of false self-employment. VZN stresses the importance of a clear and transparent assessment framework in which self-employed workers are given advance certainty. In that light, Aartsen's Belgian model appeals to them, but VZN also emphasizes that broader political consensus is necessary to truly reach a sustainable solution.

The coalition of industry associations, consisting of the ABU, NBBU, Bovib, VvDN and RIM, also remains critical of the VBAR. They have expressed that the VBAR is redundant after the Uber ruling and are calling for the legal presumption of employment to be implemented quickly and to actually get to work on social security reform.

The political dynamics surrounding this dossier are extremely fascinating. Currently, the proposal by VVD, D66, CDA and SGP can count on 41 seats in the Lower House. This is a solid base, but still insufficient for a parliamentary majority. The BBB is extremely critical of the VBAR and there is a good chance that this party will eventually support Aartsen's proposal as well. In turn, this will also have major implications for relations in the Senate, where the BBB has a solid position with 16 seats.

The coming period will reveal whether there will finally be a broad-based solution to the problem of false self-employment that has persisted for years. One thing is certain: political divisions remain and it will be a challenge to balance the two proposals.

The interesting and valuable discussions with experts reveal concerns about the position of the self-employed in the Dutch labor market. The proposedl VBAR can count on strong criticism and the representation of the self-employed in the polder needs to improve. There is also a need for a thorough review of social securityless differences between contractual forms and a vision on labor market policy. Politics faces a choice: do we keep sticking plasters or do we initiate a fundamental reform that fits the labor market of the future?

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.