Public affairs

There is a political reality and a practical reality. In the political reality, everything works on paper, but the practicality is not always beneficial and desirable. It is also partly to do with a kind of political reflex: there is a fuss, abuses are reported, for example, and then there is always a call for additional measures and rules. After all, it is a way for MPs to show that they are actively working on an issue, often with very good intentions. But the solution to many problems is not always found in more rules. How does it work out in practice? And is the rule going to achieve the purpose for which it was intended? Those are very crucial questions. And as we pile up all these rules, it becomes increasingly difficult to enforce it all. It's much more effective to enforce existing rules than to add new rules on paper.

Sure. You saw, especially after all the media coverage, that hiring organizations did panic and stopped hiring self-employed workers. The panic has subsided a bit, but the uncertainty remains. Again, you see a disconnect between wishful thinking and what the intended outcomes are in practice. It remains a major risk for organizations if it turns out that a self-employed person is an employee after all, with all the consequences that entails. Incidentally, I do not want to deny that there are no abuses in the labor market, but I do believe that these distressing cases occur mainly at the bottom of the labor market. That is where we need to focus in particular. That is why we also support the legal presumption of employment below a certain hourly rate. This limit of about €38 is very good in my opinion. Incidentally, we think it is fair to introduce a legal presumption of entrepreneurship above that hourly rate, for example.

The majority of self-employed people have very consciously chosen self-employment. They value autonomy and flexibility. This automatically raises the question to what extent our labor market facilitates this group. The discussion about false self-employment has a strong fiscal and labor law character, and we have been working for decades to deal properly with the testing of the employment relationship. You really can't escape thinking about a contract-neutral system, in which all workers, regardless of their form of contract, simply contribute to the social security system. You then get rid of the whole discussion about the qualification question. You have guaranteed that all workers contribute to social security and vulnerable workers have a safety net.

I remain modest about this, for I don't think I am capable of immediately turning the political-social debate on this. But I will certainly make an active contribution to the discussion. The difficult thing is that this discussion is being conducted from very deeply dug trenches. From the NBBU we will continue to point out the rapid changes in the labor market, the consequences of all the regulation and the opportunities of a contract-neutral system, because those opportunities are great. It meets the needs of many workers and offers people more freedom of choice. Furthermore, I want to forge many coalitions. We already enjoy working with parties such as the ABU, VvDN, Bovib and RIM, but I also want to forge alliances outside that field.

My starting point was the preliminary questions in the FNV/Uber case itself. I tried to answer them systematically using the case law and legislation in the five selected countries.

Belgium and Germany naturally chose themselves because of geographical proximity and legal system similarity to the Netherlands. France and Spain because of their rich procedural history around platform work, and Switzerland because it was outside the European Unie but experiences European impact. It is striking how each country differente weights and has different perspectives: Belgium looks more emphatically at self-employment entrepreneurship, Germany to the embedding in the organization, France to the absence of subordination, Spain to a lesser extent to entrepreneurship versus authority, and Switzerland splits the criteria between the social security law and the labor law.

Belgium's sectoral system provides guidance and clarity: by sector specific guidelines and specific criteria. Switzerland shows how to strategically split social security law and labor law, allowing for different emphases per domain. These examples help legitimize customization in the Netherlands while maintaining consistent frameworks.

My outlook is colored by understanding both self-employed people and employers. I now see more clearly what rights and obligations are involved and when someone unknowingly ends up in a false self-employment situation. That makes me more critical, but also more realistic about the need for clear and clear criteria.

By concretely clarifying the rights of self-employed workers and employees. Many people do not know that they actually get more rights at peak times of false self-employment. Clear examples - such as a Deliveroo biker who can claim transition compensation - make the complexity tangible and relevant.

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.

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.