Recently, labor market data specialist Intelligence Group released figures showing that the majority of self-employed people would like to stay in business. Never before have so few self-employed people wanted to return to paid employment, just ten percent. In 2015, the figure was 18 percent. The same declining trend can be seen in all education levels. Of forced self-employment, I dare say on the basis of this information, there is hardly any more.

Studies by Statistics Netherlands and data from the Self-Employed Labor Survey also show the same picture over and over again: self-employed workers - compared to employed or temporary workers - are more often satisfied with their working conditions, sense of autonomy and learning opportunities at work. Self-employed workers experience less stress, are generally more proud of the work they do, and place great value on their sense of flexibility and freedom. Positive numbers and a development that I think we should cherish.

Not for nothing has the number of self-employed people been rising rapidly for years. In the Netherlands there are already over 1.2 million of them. Worldwide, with 1.57 billion, it is now the fastest growing group of workers in the labor market.

Why, according to the minister, is the permanent contract the norm?
Despite these clear figures, Minister Van Gennip (SZW) came out with a firm letter on December 16, 2022. A letter full of plans and proposals that tighten the thumbscrews, make being self-employed more unattractive and where working as an employee is clearly taken as the starting point. In these plans, both labor law and tax law tighten the belt for the self-employed.

The permanent contract is the norm and the minister wants to see a reduction in the number of self-employed workers in the Dutch labor market. This seems at odds with the choices made by working people in the Netherlands. Want to limit the group of working people who, on average, are the happiest? Especially since it is very questionable whether they will actually return to salaried employment if the rules become stricter and the frameworks more limited.

Everyone is desperately needed
All the plans and proposals highlighted in last December's letter and the broader labor market letter of April 3 clearly aim to reduce flexible work. Van Gennip also makes this clear in speeches and television appearances. The plans are based on the opinions of the Borstlap Commission and the SER MLT opinion, but we are far too quick to overlook the fact that these reports came about in a truly completely different time. Reality has caught up with us: after all, we are currently facing an extremely tight labor market. Employers and clients are crying out for staff, vacancies are being filled less quickly, and many organizations currently see this as the greatest challenge and threat to the continuity of their services. Shouldn't the focus of policy and political debate be on getting more workers on the job market instead of reducing flexible work? Shouldn't we give more space and flexibility to workers? And embrace all workers, whether they are self-employed, employees or temporary workers?

Criterion of 'embedding' becomes a battleground
When I then zoom in on the content of the self-employment plans, I am nonetheless moderately enthusiastic. In the corridors I hear that policymakers and organizations involved are struggling to flesh out the three elements of authority, embedding and self-employment. Will the criterion of "embeddedness in the organization" provide the desired clarity? We are already struggling incredibly to clarify the term "authority. Will the embedding criterion then provide clarity, or will it just create even more ambiguity? While clients, intermediaries and freelancers have been calling for clear frameworks and rules for years.

As CEO of one of the largest HR-tech service providers in the country, I see hiring requests coming in daily from numerous organizations. Think of ministries, municipalities, companies and universities. And time after time I ask myself; is this function or assignment embedded in the organization? By the current definition of embedding, the answer is often 'yes': these are professionals who are flown in to work on a project or replace someone temporarily. More and more organizations are doing a lot of project-based work. Hired professionals - take software developers as an example - work shoulder-to-shoulder in teams with employees on the same projects. Over time - currently averaging 1 year - the professional moves out and the professional has made a valuable contribution to the client's goals with his or her knowledge and expertise. The hiring organization happy and the professional happy. And time and again I ask myself; will this still be possible in the future?

If not, this is going to have serious consequences for the stability of organizations. The very tight labor market and already sometimes faltering services are going to be in even bigger trouble. I predict you: this is going to be as much of a battleground as it was in 2016 when the DBA law was introduced.

Regardless of how you will define embedding, the resulting question is: what will be the interrelationship between the three elements of authority, embedding and self-employment? How much weight will the entrepreneurial criteria be given? Will these criteria actually be seen as contraindicating the existence of an employment contract? And do we then look at embeddedness of the work being performed? Or do we look at embeddedness of the worker?

The House of Representatives was therefore right to ask critical questions on February 9 in response to the zzp plans. On Wednesday, May 31, the House received no less than 56 pages of answers from the minister. In my opinion, the minister has not yet sufficiently answered those questions. The ball is now in the Parliamentarians' court to ask about this again during the Commission meeting on June 7.

What then?
I am positive that entrepreneurial criteria are clearly named in the mid-December letter. Therefore, start working on the further elaboration of clear and verifiable entrepreneurial criteria. And, more or less in line with the advice of the Boot Committee, bring forward the entrepreneurial criteria. Formulate firm criteria that an independent entrepreneur must meet. If the worker jumps through this hoop, he or she is obviously self-employed and then notions such as embedding and authority are no longer relevant. This also improves enforceability because the number of situations to be checked is thus much reduced.

What I have been advocating for some time is that we take a more sectoral approach to the zzp issue. The target group is simply far too heterogeneous and diverse for generic measures to combat the excesses. The majority of the self-employed, as mentioned, have consciously chosen self-employment and are satisfied with their working conditions and sense of autonomy. We should cherish that and not frustrate it with generic measures. Follow the example of the healthcare sector and, on the contrary, enter into discussions with trade associations and market parties in sectors that involve a lot of public money, such as education and childcare. Make clear agreements with each other about when it is or is not possible to work as a self-employed person. That approach is much more in line with the diversity of the target group and in this way you ensure customization at the sectoral level.

And third, get to work as soon as possible on a basic disability system for all working people. Separate it from the form of contract and get everyone to contribute to a collective system. That is solidary, keeps the system affordable and ensures that we protect all vulnerable workers from the consequences and risks of disability. This will require a major system change and the necessary thinking, but it is more than necessary that we start this as soon as possible.

The genie is out of the bottle
The zzp spirit is out of the bottle. I do not believe that top-down measures from The Hague are going to change this. The number of self-employed people will continue to increase. This movement is irreversible. That is why I ask politicians and policy makers in The Hague to embrace this development and, on the contrary, to regulate matters around it properly. Focus less on the form of contract, ensure that everyone contributes to a collective system and offer more space and freedom to workers, especially now, in times of extreme scarcity. On Wednesday, June 7, people will cross swords in the Chamber. I am curious to see if these fundamental questions will be raised and hope for a good substantive debate. See you then!

Note to editors

Do you have any questions or comments? Please contact Maud Raaphorst, Teamlead Communications at HeadFirst Group, reachable at 06 - 51 10 70 77 or maud.raaphorst@headfirst.nl