Public affairs

2024 was in some ways disappointing. The last six months in particular have revolved almost entirely around the lifting of the enforcement moratorium. That was already on the way because the date of January 1, 2025 is getting closer, but the debate was mainly about what is no longer allowed, rather than what is still possible. During lectures and presentations I try to show that there are opportunities to take the hiring of freelancers to a higher level. Unfortunately, the market, politics and society hardly ever talk about this. Many parties act as if the measures are unexpected, while this was already known since December 2022. On the other hand, I do understand it in a way: often organizations are mainly occupied with the delusion of the day, such as filling up the occupation, making it difficult to look ahead. At the same time, politics is mostly preoccupied with headlines and a fundamental debate about the future of the labor market remains absent.

Above all, it was much, much. Much is being written and said about it, especially since there is a sense of ambiguity in the market. Hard interests play a role in this, of course: both political and commercial. There is also a lot of misinformation going around. Anyway, my algorithm on social media is almost entirely focused on the labor market, so then it also seems like everyone is talking about this topic.

ZiPconomy is a niche platform. We focus mainly on clients of self-employed people and the agency world. We start from a basic level of knowledge and add depth, often in collaboration with our partners, who in turn come up with interesting insights. We then offer a platform, provided it's correct, of course. In addition, we do two things: first, the hard, factual news and the corresponding interpretation. Secondly, we want to fuel the debate about the flexible labor market by giving our partners a platform and by focusing even more on factual reporting, especially given the amount of misinformation going around.

That is part of who I am. My personality tells me that the debate should be based on facts. If I read something that is not true, I almost feel obliged to respond. That can irritate people, but I take that for granted. I think it is very important that we start the discussion on the basis of correct facts and figures.

To be honest, I am increasingly dissatisfied with it. I found the September 5 roundtable discussion on the lifting of the enforcement moratorium interesting, but the September 12 debate on the zzp dossier was superficial. And I found the debate on labor market policy on October 23 downright disappointing. This is partly because we have a lot of new MPs on this dossier. That makes it difficult to get to the bottom of the dossiers. In the zzp-debate the real conversation was lacking, partly because the ministers Van Hijum (Social Affairs and Employment) and former state secretary Idsinga (Taxation and Fiscal Affairs) are relatively new. What I really thought was a missed opportunity is that there was no vision of the future of the labor market during the labor market debate. There is a solid package of measures on the table to reform the labor market. In my opinion, those measures are mainly repairs, but there is far too little discussion about the next step we want to take together. What role will the self-employed have in the labor market? How do we work toward a contract-neutral system? I had expected Van Hijum to take a pioneering role in this, but unfortunately this was not forthcoming.

As a whole, it mainly points to capacity problems in the implementing agencies, and that's what I find so crazy about politics: political ambition usually starts from its own wish list instead of looking at what is possible according to those implementing agencies. There is a paradox here: the government has to solve more and more with fewer resources. The annoying thing is that if all those legislative proposals do not get off the ground, political support for all those plans may subsequently decline as well. And we must remain really critical of the usefulness, necessity and proportionality of new legislative proposals.

Chaotic. There is a lot of shouting about self-employed workers and the expiration of the enforcement moratorium, especially on social media like LinkedIn. Many people are voicing their opinions, often from an incomplete understanding of the situation. The remarkable thing about this chaos is that those opinions can by no means always be separated from commercial interests. A lot of money is made from services that check the compliance of clients and freelancers, offering a form of false security. Sometimes I see invitations to seminars or workshops come along about the qualification question (employee or self-employed?) that contain legal errors, which is embarrassing. At the same time, I also see public campaigns by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and the Tax Administration to make the rules around zzp hiring clear. But even that apparently does not lead to the desired clarity. So are these campaigns unclear or does the practice not find the answers desirable? My answer to that question can probably be guessed.

The amount of misinformation frustrates me; I feel a responsibility to correct it. As an independent academic, I try to enrich the public debate with nuance and interpretation. Sure, this sometimes results in less than kind responses, given the sensitivity of this issue. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to continue to give my opinion, which is substantiated by scientific research.

The enforcement moratorium was once established with the promise of new legislation to make it clearer when a worker is an employee or self-employed. There will be no new law on Jan. 1, 2025, but the perception that there is no clear legislation at all now is simply not true. Much has changed between the promulgation of the enforcement moratorium and Jan. 1, 2025. In the Deliveroo judgment, the Supreme Court gave nine points of view in testing false self-employment (employee status). That offers quite a bit of guidance. The problem is that people often want one hundred percent clarity in advance, and that is simply difficult in a market that is so diverse. If you assume one hundred percent certainty, you take away the possibility of applying open standards that do justice to the actual situation of how parties work with each other ('substance goes before appearance'). And if you do want extra certainty, the Tax Office offers room for a pre-consultation; I know a number of people who got a response to the pre-consultation request within a few weeks. So the options are there. I sincerely wonder if the question, "is there clear regulation?" for many should not rather be "am I happy with the answer given to this?".

Very good. There are actually two reasons why I like it so much. First of all, my interest in the labor market file has never gone away and at the Bovib I can take that further. In addition, the Bovib is an organization that is growing fast, building on that is fantastic. The organization is becoming more and more visible and I feel responsible to continue that line. There is a lot of work to do in the area of representing the self-employed, who often fall between the cracks. A clear legal framework for this is still lacking and I would like to contribute to that as director of the Bovib.

The way the labor market is currently legally structured no longer reflects reality. The labor market is becoming more flexible, but there is no good legal framework to support that. Wage employment is no longer taken for granted for workers; the Bovib is responding well to this change.

Simply put: connecting supply and demand, like an oil man. The Bovib fulfills a modern role within the coalition of industry associations that support the flexible labor market. The need for flexible work comes not only from companies, but also from workers themselves. Bovib members open up the labor market and support clients in complying with laws and regulations.

Sham self-employment occurs when a self-employed person is ostensibly self-employed, but when the facts and circumstances point to an employment contract. Whether an agreement should be regarded as an employment agreement depends on all relevant facts and circumstances taken together. These include (1) the manner in which the work and working hours are determined, (2) the embedding of the work and the worker in the organization, and (3) to what extent the worker runs entrepreneurial risk. In practice, there are other criteria and indications that weigh in determining the employment relationship. Should an assignment contract with a freelancer nevertheless be qualified as an employment contract, this will have tax and legal consequences for both the freelancer and the client.

The main testing framework for this comes from existing case law and, in particular, the Deliveroo judgment. The Supreme Court has formulated several points of view that are relevant when assessing the employment relationship. It is important for self-employed persons and clients to be aware of these criteria and indications. On Friday, November 1, the Tax Office published a document entitled 'Explanation of assessment of working relationships'. This document further explains which legal principles and case law are important when assessing a working relationship.

To enshrine these viewpoints in law, political Hague is working on the draft bill Verduidelijking Beoordeling Arbeidsrelaties en Rechtsvermoeden (VBAR).. The law aims to create a clearer distinction between employees and the self-employed and give vulnerable workers at the base of the labor market (under €33 per hour) a better legal position. Consideration of this bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate has yet to take place. You can read more about it here.