Legislation & politics

The measure introduces a rebuttable legal presumption for self-employed individuals with a rate below approximately 38 euros per hour (as of January 1, 2027, this amount will be 39 euros per hour). It is very important to note that this presumption does not arise automatically: the worker must first demonstrate that their compensation is below the statutory threshold. Only if they succeed will it be presumed that an employment contract exists. 

This does not, therefore, constitute a complete reversal of the burden of proof. Rather, it involves a gradual shift. First, the worker must substantiate the presumption of employment, starting with the lower rate. After that, a legal presumption arises that works in his or her favor. This does not mean, however, that there will be a strict “rate-based classification,” as is being suggested on social media: for instance, it is claimed that self-employed individuals with an hourly rate above 38 euros per hour are primarily considered self-employed, while those below the 38-euro threshold are primarily subject to an employment contract. That is incorrect: even above 38 euros per hour, there can still be cases of bogus self-employment. At the same time, it is still perfectly possible to work as a self-employed person below 38 euros per hour.

The idea has been around for years: assessing whether tasks can be carried out independently for each sector. Hugo Jan Ruts, founder of ZiPmedia, called it an "interesting idea," but warned that sectoral assessment is more complicated than it seems: "Society is constantly evolving, and work changes with it and that reality shifts faster than you can create a final picture. Functions, activities, and organizations are constantly changing." A test that is accurate today may be obsolete tomorrow. The panel also noted that some sectors very active freelancers , while other sectors are somewhat more cautious. Incidentally, it is also true that assessing an employment relationship an individual assessment: the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has ruled in the FNV/Uber ruling that no general ruling can be made about 'groups' self-employed professionals. 

Wilmar Dik has been working as a professional photographer since 2008 and in recent years has been strongly committed to the interests of self-employed people, particularly those at the grassroots level of the market. From his practical experience, he has seen how low rates, limited room for negotiation, and inadequate protection converge among vulnerable groups of self-employed professionals. Among other things, he is active as an advocate for the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ). and is affiliated with the Ketentafel Fotografie (Photography Chain Table). Based on his experience as a self-employed professional'er he developed he a proposal for sector-specific minminimum rates. His starting point is clear: anyone who wants to organize protection must start with a realistic lower limit that reflects the economic reality of a sector. In conversation with Oifik , Wilmar explains why his proposal deserves deserves political attention. 

Niels van der Neut, labor lawyer, emphasized that autonomy is the main reason why people become self-employed: "Not the money, but precisely the flexibility and control over their own work. Where, how, and with whom they carry it out." Several studies confirm this view: highly educated and specialized professionals in particular choose independence in order to truly practice their profession in their own way. The panel also noted that several developments and reasons may play a role : poor workplace practices, limited development opportunities, and rigid job profiles all contribute to the consideration and choice to ultimately start working as a self-employed person. The rise of self-employed professionals is therefore no coincidence, but a response to a changing labor market and changing preferences among workers. In addition the panel pointed out the importance of job satisfaction and personal development. Self-employed people often consciously choose entrepreneurship because it gives them the freedom to decide for themselves which assignments you choose and shape their shape their career.  

Connie Maathuis, chair of the Dutch Association of Self-Employed Persons, clearly highlighted the problem: "We are sitting on a chair, but it is not yet our chair." She is referring to the fact that self-employed persons are being heard, but are not yet structurally involved in important decision-making on labor market policy. The current chair model of the SER (Social and Economic Council) dates back to a time when the labor market was straightforward: employers on one side, employee organizations on the other, and self-employed people barely present. Today, self-employed entrepreneurs are indispensable to the economy, but their institutional representation is limited and often dependent on goodwill. Maathuis states: "This can no longer continue."

During the book launch on February 9 in Nieuwspoort, a diverse audience—ranging from policy officers from various ministries and politicians to lawyers, trade associations, and market parties—discussed the complexity of the subject. After the opening discussion with the authors, led by moderator Hans Biesheuvel, a panel of labor market experts immediately delved into the details. That discussion took place in a politically relevant context: the Netherlands may be on the eve of a new cabinet consisting of D66, CDA, and VVD.

According to Hugo-Jan Ruts, founder of ZiPconomy, you can certainly speak of a puzzle, although he believes it is primarily a puzzle "that cannot be solved in a day." He pointed out that both society and working methods continue to change, which means that "the pieces of the puzzle are constantly evolving and never fall into place by themselves." This touches on a key point: the lack of a shared vision for the future of the labor market.

The book shows how the issues and differing perspectives in the self-employed dossier did not arise solely from the recent enforcement of bogus self-employment, but have been simmering for much longer. From the introduction of the VAR in 2001, through the introduction of the DBA Act in 2016, the subsequent enforcement pause, to the critical advice and responses to the VBAR bill: attempts have been made time and again to get a grip on the question of when someone is an employee and when they are self-employed. But none of these attempts provided sufficient clarity. In addition, several legislative proposals failed to reach the finish line. The result: a puzzle in which policy, practice, and data never seem to fit together completely.

In recent years, self-employed people have increasingly been portrayed as a risk, even though the available data gives little reason to believe this. The majority of self-employed people consciously choose entrepreneurship, work based on their expertise and autonomy, and do not want to return to salaried employment. Nevertheless, gut feelings and sentiments prevail in the media and politics, with self-employed people regularly being portrayed in an inaccurate manner. This image has direct consequences: organizations that fear reputational risks, fines, or additional tax assessments are drastically changing their hiring policies, while self-employed people feel misunderstood and unrecognized. Among other things, the book makes it clear how perceptions, fueled by misinformation—sometimes due to a lack of legal knowledge, sometimes due to commercial interests—determine a substantial part of the debate and thus influence policy proposals and the quality of the political and social debate.

Unlike the court in its ruling in 2021, the court of appeal concludes that it cannot be established that Uber drivers generally work on the basis of an employment contract. For the drivers who joined Uber in the appeal, the court of appeal ruled that there is a high degree of entrepreneurship. In doing so, the court takes various factors into account, such as the size of the investments made by drivers themselves, for example in their cars, the freedom to decide for themselves when they work, the strategic choices in accepting or refusing rides and the associated earnings, and the bearing of risks, such as liability and incapacity for work. 

At the same time, the court does not rule out the possibility that there are individual drivers who do work for Uber on the basis of an employment contract. However, as there is no concrete information about individual circumstances, the court cannot determine which drivers or groups of drivers this would apply to. As a result, there is insufficient basis for making a general assessment of groups of drivers.