The debate about the position of the self-employed, false self-employment and the meaning of good employment practices is more topical than ever. The contours of possible new legislation, including the Self-Employment Act and the bill Verduidelijking Beoordeling Arbeidsrelaties en Rechtsvermoeden (VBAR), force a rethinking of the relationship between autonomy and protection. Sem Overduin of HeadFirst Group went into conversation with FNV Zelfstandigen director Henk van der Schaft and policy advisor Wim Arie van Zelderen. Their message is clear: "Self-employed people make an important contribution to the Dutch economy. But being self-employed brings with it the responsibility to organize one's affairs well. FNV Zelfstandigen gladly supports this. Employers can also offer much more space in the permanent contract with their employees. Where employers miss the self-employment of employeesuse to reduce rates and evade rules, they find the FNV opposite them."
What is FNV Zelfstandigen's vision of the position of self-employed workers in the labor market in 2025 and in the future?
Self-employment is fine, as long as you meet its primary characteristics: getting your own assignments, being responsible for performance, not receiving work instructions, and that you can negotiate your rate well. But the moment a self-employed person does the same work as an employee, without paying social security contributions, that person effectively becomes a competitor of the employee. That is unacceptable to us, because there really must be a distinction between the employee and the self-employed in our eyes. There is nothing wrong with flexibility, as long as it is not a cost saving in disguise. Being flexible as a worker does not automatically mean being self-employed in our eyes.
Two proposals are in the works to make a clearer distinction between employees and self-employed workers: the Self-Employment Act and the VBAR. Both proposals are generating debate. How do you view these proposals?
The Internet consultation on the Self-Employed Act recently closed. We as FNV Zelfstandigen can agree with the response of the Labor Foundation. We believe that the Self-Employed Act is not going to provide clarity. We are also critical of the proposed Commission. Then, of course, everyone will soon go to that Commission, because gray areas simply remain. Also, the Self-Employment Act is less clear about the legal presumption based on an hourly rate. The VBAR is better drafted in that regard. But even in that bill, a line is drawn, and then there are always groups that fall just outside the box. So the question remains how much clarity both proposals really offer. In the VBAR's assessment framework, the mutual weighting of the criteria is not very clear either. As far as we are concerned, the emphasis should be on enforcement, which fortunately was resumed at the beginning of this year. What we see mainly is that the years of non-commitment - due to the enforcement moratorium on the DBA Act - has flattened the market. Now that the tide is turning, we understand that the market is shocked, but we consider this shock to be exaggerated and mainly based on a lack of real knowledge.
Many self-employed people and clients have become insecure as the Internal Revenue Service has resumed enforcement. Are you noticing anything?
The need for clarity on the front end is great, and somewhere we understand that. We too receive calls from freelancers about their work situation, contract or hourly rate. We also notice that many clients lack sufficient knowledge about hiring self-employed workers. Unfortunately, there are clients who rigorously say goodbye or have said goodbye to self-employed workers, while in some cases it could have continued just fine. We support the self-employed person to enter into discussion with the client and make a good analysis of the work situation.
You favor a legal presumption of employment below a certain hourly rate. So how do you guys view cutting up the VBAR bill to quickly introduce the legal presumption?
We warmly support the presumption of law, only the breaking up the VBAR we don't see much point in it; you have to see the bill as a whole and otherwise this doesn't work. The judiciary also does not just look at the hourly rate; there are multiple viewpoints that come into play. The hourly rate is just an indication. A worker who has been somewhere for ten years and is billing €100 an hour is not destitute, is not at the bottom of the labor market, but is obviously a worker. So you can't just brush these other factors away. We also recognize that the VBA part is not the solution, but it will certainly help. People want to know a priori where they stand, but it is still a holistic test. What annoys us is that people keep shouting that everything is unclear, but if you really delve into the points of view and criteria, you can usually get by just fine. Often it is undesirable, which is different from unclear. The core lies in enforcement of existing rules, it always has been.
In the healthcare sector, you now see for example do see a movement again and more self-employed people being hired. What do you think of that development?
It mainly has to do with the fact that there has not yet been an audit by the Inland Revenue or that hospitals or health care institutions believe that the damage will not be too bad. There arepartly by FNV Zelfstandigen, Many cases have been presented about working in health care, and often the conclusion is of the assessors from Belastingdienst, the Ministry SZW and Ministry of VWS: that becomes very difficult as a self-employed person. So the fact that more zzp'ers are now being hired again does not mean that it is allowed. Clients who continue to hire self-employed people for regular executive care work on the shop floor unchanged are really going to have big problems in the long run.. I think that is unwise. In healthcare, it is primarily an employer issue. Healthcare professionals want direction over their work, for example, in filling out rosters. Employers need to engage in that conversation. It is perfectly possible to incorporate elements of self-employment into employment. Employers in health care really need to start moving and listening to the motives of workers for choosing self-employment. They need to work with that. The jump to zzp should not be the solution to failing employers.
Being a good employer, what exactly does that mean to you?
Being a good employer means taking seriously the needs of workers for autonomy, flexibility and control. It starts with listening. Many people choose self-employment because they get stuck in rigid structures, not because they necessarily want to be entrepreneurs. As an employer, you can offer a lot of space within an employment contract. The permanent contract is not a prison, that is an idiotic image that sometimes lives. Get together and have a good conversation. There are plenty of examples of workers having more control over their working hours or being given more direction over the work they have to do. You can integrate elements of entrepreneurship and self-direction into employment. Employers need to get rid of the idea that flexibility can only be organized through external shells can be organized. That is not only a defensive reflex, it is also a missed opportunity.
Contract neutrality is often mentioned as a solution to reduce the gap, for example in disability, between self-employed and employed people. How do you guys view that?
Contract neutrality sounds attractive, but it is bound to lead to deteriorations, especially if equalizing the self-employed and salaried workers is accompanied by a reduction in the protection of salaried workers. We are strongly opposed to this. It should not be the case that employees have to cave in to the level of basic provisions for the self-employed. It is not for nothing that we have such good arrangements for employees in the Netherlands. Contract neutrality should not be a reason to erode protection for employees; that is acceptable to us.
What should politicians do?
It is very important that regulations are actually enforced. There is now a kind of double ambiguity - about what is allowed and how it is enforced and what the consequences are. That has to be removed. If you make rules and laws, enforce them. And furthermore, politicians must cut through knots and actually do things. Look for example at the coming mandatory basic disability insurance (BAZ). We have been talking about this for so long, over ten years. Such a compulsory disability insurance simply has to come about because for 20 years it appears that self-employed people simply do not have it arranged or get it arranged. The Netherlands has an enormously high participation rate, but part of that group is still working under poor conditions. That has to be improved. Issues such as unemployment, pension and disability must be properly regulated for all workers. That is what we stand for.
And what should not be missing from election programs?
Mandatory disability insurance is a very important starting point for us. It is a basic provision, but fortunately you can always opt for more, for example through endowment circles or bread funds. But there must be a lower limit. Internationally, we are also embarrassingly alone in this. We have arranged it super neatly for the nine million employees, so isn't it a little odd that we haven't arranged it properly for the other million? And by the way, until 2004 it was neatly arranged for the self-employed. It is not for nothing that Europe also emphasizes this. In the field of self-employment, matters relating to disability and old age are still insufficiently regulated. We believe that this must be changed.
Request a free consultation
Questions about this? Please contact us.
Sem Overduin
Public Policy & Affairs Manager
Sem.Overduin@headfirst.nl
Oifik Youssefi
Public Affairs Officer
Oifik.Youssefi@headfirst.nl
Maaike van Driel
Head of Legal
Maaike.vanDriel@headfirst.group
Thomas ten Veldhuijs
Senior Legal Counsel
Thomas.tenVeldhuijs@headfirst.nl