Legislation & politics

As was the case in the 2024 Opinion Monitor, “uncertainty” is a key concern for many respondents. Despite the fact that nearly 69% are (very) well informed about the Tax and Customs Administration’s enforcement strategy, many self-employed individuals are worried. Given the amount of misinformation circulating on social media regarding enforcement against bogus self-employment, it is likely that there is a significant need for clear and consistent communication in advance.

Although the national government itself emphasizes the importance of clear communication regarding enforcement, over 70 percent of respondents say they are (very) dissatisfied with the way the government communicates on this issue. According to many self-employed professionals, uncertainty about the rules directly translates into fewer assignments. In HeadFirst Group’s 2024 opinion survey, self-employed professionals were also critical of the national government’s public campaign—in that case, regarding the lifting of the enforcement moratorium: 65% indicated that the campaign provided (absolutely) no clarity.

Politicians also took note of these concerns. Thierry Aartsen (VVD), now Minister of Labor and Participation, Hans Vijlbrief (D66), now Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, and then-Member of Parliament Mariska Rikkers-Oosterkamp (BBB) called on the previous cabinet in a motion to actively communicate that working with self-employed professionals remains possible, provided the rules are followed. This motion was adopted by the House of Representatives on May 27, 2025.

Nevertheless, there remains a great deal of uncertainty. Nearly 77 percent of respondents say they are (very) dissatisfied with the clarity regarding which assignments self-employed professionals can and cannot undertake.

The individual responsibility of self-employed workers. I don’t see this reflected enough in the discussion surrounding self-employment. Remember: if you don’t make provisions for disability or retirement, something is going wrong. Entrepreneurship also means looking ahead. 

As far as I’m concerned, tax benefits should be made conditional. Consider the SME profit exemption or the self-employed tax deduction. Attach requirements to them. If you haven’t made the necessary provisions, why should you receive all the benefits? Both schemes are currently being significantly scaled back, but otherwise that would have been a worthy goal. 

From a business perspective, it would be interesting for us—I’ll be honest. Entrepreneurship isn’t just about freedom; it’s also about responsibility. At the same time, as a matter of principle, I’m not in favor of legal obligations. 

The bill refers to “adequate provisions,” but what that means in concrete terms remains unclear. Everyone already contributes to the AOW; that much is clear. In my view, the focus should be on ensuring that self-employed individuals not only save for the future, but also have the means to enjoy the present. 

If someone runs into financial difficulties, and this is clearly evident in their income tax return, it should be possible to withdraw funds early from a savings account set aside for later use. Currently, this is only allowed in cases of long-term disability. 

Relax those rules. Make sure people can access their retirement savings sooner if necessary. The COVID-19 crisis has shown why this is essential. Many self-employed people had to dip into their own savings at the time. You need to take this seriously when designing the system. 

Pension systems in the Netherlands should, at their core, be individual-based. Under the old system, which utilized the Financial Assessment Framework, the emphasis was strongly on security. As a result, a significant amount of collective assets was accumulated, with a portion of those assets tied up in buffers to provide that so-called security. 

The Future Pensions Act is changing that, but the structure is still partly based on a labor market that no longer exists. In the past, people often worked in a single sector for a long time, which was linked to a single pension fund. That model is becoming increasingly out of step with reality. The average 35-year-old already has about five pension plans.  

Workers now move much more frequently between employers or clients, across sectors, and between different types of contracts. In this context, a system tied to employers simply makes less sense. By making pensions truly individual-based, they become neutral with respect to the form of employment. This better aligns with how people work today and ensures continuity, regardless of the form of employment. 

The legal presumption is therefore rebuttable. This means that the client, in turn, can rebut the presumption by presenting specific facts and circumstances that indicate self-employment. 

The judge then considers all the circumstances of the case. These include the degree of authority and supervision, the employee’s organizational placement, the business risk, and the nature and duration of the work.  

As noted earlier, the result is that even if the hourly rate is below 38 euros, the individual may still be considered a self-employed person, since the relevant facts and circumstances remain the determining factor in assessing the employment relationship. There is therefore no automatic transition to employee status.  

University lecturer in labor law Niels van der Neut at the University of Amsterdam explained that national legislation should also take European legislation. "You can say at the national level that someone is a freelancer, but under European law can that same person still qualify as an employee." Ultimately, every situation must be assessed on the basis of "all circumstances of the case" .. Exactly as prescribed by European labor regulations and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly has . It remains a matter of holistic assessment.  

For me, this issue has been a puzzle for years. Since the introduction of the DBA Act, we have been grappling with the same problem: the employment relationship test. This is partly due to weak representation of the interests of self-employed people and partly due to strong lobbying from the business community. This makes it difficult to arrive at a balanced solution.  The call for more clarity about the employment relationship has been heard for years, but the basis of the self-employed population often remains out of sight. 

I have long been preoccupied with the question of what is fair for self-employed professionals. For me, the solution lies in sector-specific minimum rates, enshrined in law. That addresses the core of the problem.

Koolmees' proposal was based on a single fixed rate. My proposal works with brackets, based on billable hours per professional group. This brings you in line with the reality of the sector. 

A fixed limit, such as the €16 proposed at the time, does not do justice to differences between, for example, media, culture, or technology, and flattens everything. If you don't take those differences into account, it's not surprising that such a proposal doesn't make it.

That space is indeed shrinking. But right now, that space is so large that in some markets it is taking on antisocial proportions. The only thing that is no longer negotiable is a price level that drives people into poverty and makes it impossible to build social security. Everything above that remains negotiable. Currently, the risks lie entirely with the self-employed, while clients benefit from low rates. 

A minimum wage makes the market more socially responsible. A recent motion by Mirjam Bikker (Christian Union), among others, calling on the cabinet to ensure that poverty figures do not rise during this cabinet term, was supported by the entire House of Representatives. All coalition parties also voted in favor.  

Just as employees cannot be paid less than the minimum wage, self-employed people should also have a minimum income base. If you multiply the average number of billable hours by standard rates, in some sectors you end up with an annual income well below the minimum. 

The panel emphasized that change must not come solely from politics. The polder—employers' organizations, industry associations, and trade unions—must also structurally recognize the self-employed as an important pillar of the labor market. Three pain points emerged clearly:

1. Self-employed individuals are an essential part of many sectors, from IT and healthcare to business services.
2. The traditional "employee versus employer" model no longer fits in with a labor market in which hundreds of thousands of professionals consciously choose independence.
3. Self-employed people are still too often only invited to the table "by invitation," which limits their influence.

The panel therefore advocated for a SER 3.0, in which self-employed persons are fully-fledged and structural discussion partners.

Labor lawyer Niels van der Neut emphasized that lawyers are keen to examine the self-employed issue, but that "this does not always work out favorably for self-employed people who just want to work." He warned that the debate has become too fixated on the question of classification, while the fundamentals—the social and tax systems—are at least as important. Van der Neut also tempered expectations regarding absolute clarity in advance. European law makes it impossible to provide completely watertight prior assessment. At the same time, he does see room for improvement: the better the tax and labor law criteria are developed, the less uncertainty there will be afterwards.

For Connie Maathuis, chair of the Dutch Association of Self-Employed Persons (VZN), the task facing the new cabinet is crystal clear. She believes that the prospective Minister of Labor and Participation, Thierry Aartsen (VVD), in particular, has a heavy responsibility.Political decisiveness is now more necessary than ever," Maathuis stated. She warned that a phased introduction of legislation—such as in the case of the legal presumption of employment—will primarily lead to additional uncertainty in the market.

According to her, there is a need for clarity in one go, including through the further elaboration of the Self-Employed Persons Act and the rapid introduction of parts of the bill on Clarification of the Assessment of Employment Relationships and Legal Presumption (VBAR). "Don't give self-employed persons and clients yet another period of uncertainty."

What De ZZPuzzel also reveals is that the real problem lies deeper than legislation or enforcement. Dutch labor law and the social security system were designed at a time when work was almost exclusively carried out in salaried employment. The rise of hybrid careers, project-based work, and self-employment is increasingly difficult to fit into legal categories. This creates tension between different interests, such as individual freedom of choice, collective protection, solidarity, and the sustainability of the social security system. According to the authors, this explains the importance of taking an integrated view of the self-employed issue. As long as the system itself is not revised, any measure will be merely a band-aid solution. A much more fundamental reform is therefore necessary.

Although it is often claimed that "the self-employed person does not exist," the book convincingly demonstrates that the self-employed person is indeed a recognizable worker. Although the group is very diverse, the initial motives are generally clear, the number of forced self-employed persons is small, and the majority of self-employed persons are very satisfied with their working conditions.

The authors demonstrate how simplifying this group not only obscures the debate, but also has consequences for the development of policy and legislation. As a result, the political discussion remains stuck in extremes, while the reality is much more nuanced.

Not entirely surprisingly, the court's ruling follows the line set out by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo ruling. The holistic test emphasizes the importance of weighing nine aspects equally when assessing the employment relationship; none of the aspects carries more weight than the others. In addition, the actual circumstances of the employment relationship take precedence over the terms and conditions of employment laid down on paper (substance prevails over appearance); it should also be emphasized that no two employment relationships are the same and that, in fact, no ruling can be made about groups of self-employed persons. This ruling formalizes that fact.  

Above all, this case also shows that the court attaches importance to the degree of external entrepreneurship. This is in line with a broader trend that has been followed more frequently by judges since the Deliveroo ruling. ZiPconomy refers to an analysis by the University of Amsterdam of case law since the Deliveroo ruling, which shows that external entrepreneurship often plays a significant role in the assessment of employment relationships. For self-employed persons, this means in concrete terms that demonstrating entrepreneurship (own equipment, bearing entrepreneurial risk, etc.) is important in the assessment of the employment relationship.