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.

On June 13, 2023, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal will consider whether Uber is an employer. The court states that more clarity is needed on the legal framework and decides to submit preliminary questions to the Supreme Court. This is because of the high social and legal importance of the issue.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal Is formulating questions for the Supreme Court on two key issues:

• The role of entrepreneurship in assessing employment relationships.

• The appropriateness of the AVV Act (Act on declaring collective agreements generally binding and non-binding) as the basis for the FNV's collective action. The Supreme Court's answers will influence not only this case but also future disputes about platform work.

I am optimistic. I think - and above all, I hope - that it will not be too bad. Working with the self-employed can and should be just fine. But I see the concerns growing more and more in the run-up to Jan. 1, 2025. So my appeal to clients is: keep your cool, stay calm and don't force people into salaried employment en masse (in short order). Don't use the lifting of the moratorium as an excuse to panic. Look at what can be done, arrange a job description neatly and in such a way that you can just keep working with self-employed people. Stick to the agreements you make with each other. I especially hope that we can keep that calm.

Yes, absolutely. There is a huge lack of innovation, and that is precisely what is desperately needed. We have to fundamentally rethink the position of the self-employed and our labor market as a whole. We have to admit that flex has gone too far in some places. But fixed is also very much fixed, and we need to discuss that too. So about flex and permanent. The outline agreement mentions two laws: the WTTA and the VBAR. The VVD supports the WTTA. The outline agreement does state that 'the cabinet is free to continue with the VBAR'. That is different from going ahead and agreeing to it blindly. I, as the VVD, am highly critical of that VBAR. And not only the VVD, but many industry associations, zzp organizations and scientists with me. That is why I also asked the cabinet: consider splitting the law, then you can already start working on the legal presumption based on an hourly rate for the basis of the labor market. And compulsory disability insurance is just enormously complicated. As the VVD, we think the opt-out is very important. Without that opt-out, a compulsory regulation cannot come about as far as we are concerned. But we have to look beyond that. It is time for a modern approach that really supports the self-employed, without forcing them into a straitjacket.

The cabinet finally began to move toward a soft landing, and the House supported it. I was really happy about that, though.

The concerns of self-employed people I receive daily in my mailbox. That touches me very much. People who work hard and are now losing assignments because organizations no longer dare to take them on. That does strike me as a low point.

A fundamental discussion about how we deal with the self-employed. In recent years, politicians have not sufficiently succeeded in answering the question of how we want to deal with the self-employed in the labor market. We have left that question unanswered. We need to have a serious conversation about a contract-independent system. That is a nice dot on the horizon and an important goal for me. And finally, I look forward specifically to January 21. Then we as VVD will organize a townhall session on the future of the self-employed, together with our political leader Dilan Yeşilgöz. I think it would be great to talk to a large group of self-employed people about how they envision their future.

*This interview is part of a series, in which in recent weeks the Public Affairs team has interviewed several experts closely involved in issues surrounding the self-employed and the labor market. The series consists of six interviews, which will be published in the coming weeks.

I deliberately named my chair "Sustainable Employability of Entrepreneurs. When I ask an entrepreneur "what does sustainable employability mean to you?", the entrepreneur starts talking about what he or she is doing for the employees or the company. Entrepreneurs are constantly working to keep the business running, who is working for others for their feelings, who is just doing business. The topic is enormously important, we pay far too little attention to it. And only in recent years has the theme really started to land more, but I have also been on the stage for twenty years. More and more the realization is coming: if the entrepreneur does not develop, then neither can the company. There is a direct link between that.

Then, though, the question immediately arises: for what target group exactly are we doing it? There are almost 2.6 million registrations at the Chamber of Commerce. I think many entrepreneurs will think: I'll do that myself. Entrepreneurs are of course stubborn, at least I am myself. Maybe it should not be directly with the government, but more with industry associations. They often know much better what is going on in a particular sector and understand what is needed. And sustainable employability is also quite a complex concept. According to the literature, it consists of three elements: vitality, work capacity and employability. For an employee, it often stops at these three, but a fourth element is added for the entrepreneur: his or her own company. And that company must also remain healthy and develop. That company must also move with the times. Technological developments, legal developments ... An employee does not have that extra element.

That there is stronger representation for the self-employed within the SER. Previously, this group of employed people was not automatically given a place to participate and provide input in writing reports and drafting opinions. This has now really changed.

That by confusing facts and opinions, we can no longer come out together. That's how it feels to me. A lot of stimuli come at us and people tend to grab hold of something and hold on to it. And in fear we mainly hold on to the negative things, but we have to see what we can do. That is part of being an entrepreneur. And you don't solve things through negativity, we solve things through positivity and connection.

We have many challenges that continue into the new year. For example, the tight labor market and enforcement. But we have to pick it up together and have good conversations. We need to have more understanding of each other's situation and be genuinely more interested in the self-employed, for example. Why do people choose to be self-employed? How are we going to fulfill that need for autonomy and flexibility? By asking the right questions, we also start to understand each other better. Therein lies the core, and I hope that in 2025 we will work with that.

*This interview is part of a series, in which in recent weeks the Public Affairs team has interviewed several experts closely involved in issues surrounding the self-employed and the labor market. The series consists of six interviews, which will be published in the coming weeks.

You notice that politicians have to start from scratch again. This is understandable, because the zzp dossier is complicated and there has been a huge changing of the guard in the Lower House. There are a lot of new people on the zzp file. I see that most MPs are now breaking into this file, but that also takes time. A MP like Thierry Aartsen (VVD) has been around longer. He really wants to work for the situation of the self-employed. The BBB is also making itself heard for the self-employed. At the NSC there was a MP on the zzp file with a lot of entrepreneurial experience, but Tjebbe van Oostenbruggen recently became State Secretary. I hope that all MPs also get - and take - enough time to master this dossier. I am a bit skeptical about that. This could have a big impact on the depth of the discussion. Fairly recently we had a good conversation with Minister Van Hijum. He is genuinely interested in the zzp perspective. He is sharp and asks good questions. But I see it as a missed opportunity that the coalition agreement paid so little attention to the labor market and the self-employed. The policy of the previous administration was simply continued and the approach is pretty classic: the permanent job is the norm. That is out of date. Sticking a past solution on a current problem. That's not going to work.

The opinion of the Council of State was heartening for us. Back in the fall of 2023, we came up with a solid response to the Internet consultation. Many of our concerns I read back into this opinion. The section on clarifying the employment relationship is not going to provide clarity and the entrepreneurship of the individual is secondary. At VZN, we advocate for a modern approach that incorporates individual entrepreneurship much more. The growth in the number of freelancers shows that the classic model no longer works. It is time to recognize that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. We need to move toward a system where all working people have some arrangement for disability, old-age provision and also education. If you as a self-employed person want to take advantage of the entrepreneurial facilities that we have, then you can link it to that, so that you will then actually arrange those other things for yourself. For example, by creating a business buffer from which you hedge your entrepreneurial and social risks. This is how you stimulate sustainable self-employment. That is something from which people and society both benefit. Defining employment and entrepreneurship to the letter, as the minister is now trying to do, is not going to work. Instead, start organizing all the preconditions around it properly. And tackle the issue of social security. Make sure it is no longer merely linked to employment. That is forward-looking.

I expect a lot of hassle in the first few months, especially around enforcement. It's really not going to work to get all those self-employed people back into salaried employment. They don't want it. And I fear that the temp and secondment constructions that are coming up now are going to lead to even higher personnel costs. We wake up on January 1 on a waterbed. The flex signs have been moved here and there but the permanent contract has still not begun to take off, because both many clients and workers no longer want it. Eventually we will have to recognize the need for flexibility and autonomy. That will hopefully open the door to a broader discussion about how we are going to organize the labor market differently. I hope we will have that fundamental discussion together in 2025. How we can really work on a different system with a full role and position of the self-employed in this future-oriented labor market.

*Minister van Hijum (SZW) made a commitment during the Social Affairs and Employment budget debate to "take another good look" at the VBAR. Earlier, Van Hijum had intended to send the bill to the Lower House this year, but indicated that he was still waiting for the Supreme Court to answer preliminary questions in the Uber/FNV case. This has changed between the interview and publication dates.

*This interview is part of a series, in which in recent weeks the Public Affairs team has interviewed several experts closely involved in issues surrounding the self-employed and the labor market. The series consists of six interviews, which will be published in the coming weeks.