Lawyer Joost van Ladesteijn: "Too much attention is given to the hooligans on the job market instead of the supporters"

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.