The labor market polder has a new top man: Halbe Zijlstra has been the chairman of the Nederlandse Bond van Bemiddelings- en Uitzendondernemingen (NBBU) since March 2025. After his role as VVD parliamentary party chairman in Rutte II, a management position at VolkerWessels and having been active himself as a self-employed worker, he sees how the intermediary industry is at a crossroads due to, among other things, the possible introduction of the Law on the Admission of Temporary Workers (WTTA). A system change that Zijlstra believes could have major consequences: from huge sums of idle money, increasing administrative burden and exclusion of bona fide companies. In conversation with Sem Overduin of HeadFirst Group, he shines his light on the WTTA, the regulatory drive of The Hague and a contract-neutral social system for all workers.

Sem: You have done a lot in your career. From being a member of parliament at the local and national level, to being a member of government, director of a construction company and self-employed. What drew you to the presidency of the NBBU?

I became self-employed two years ago and did an assignment for several healthcare intermediaries. Gradually I came into contact with the NBBU and got to know this trade association as an organization that always bases discussions on facts and puts the practicability of policy and legislation at the center. When the chairmanship position became available, I saw the opportunity to contribute to an organization with a strong policy office and knowledgeable people. Working with a club like that is a pleasure.

Many people remember you from your time as a representative of the people: how does your political experience connect to this position?

As VVD group chairman in the Rutte II Cabinet, you are naturally involved in all dossiers. Among other things, I negotiated social agreements and the efforts to make "permanent less permanent and "flex less flex. In that cabinet we did a lot for the labor market. At the same time, I have experienced up close how recalcitrant the labor market file can be. I use that knowledge and insight not only to understand complex laws such as the WTTA in terms of content, but also to test their usefulness and feasibility. Too often in The Hague it appears that rules get bogged down in administrative obligations, without achieving the intended objectives. In fact, our labor market policy is one big regulatory distrust. The central question should be: what is the purpose of a rule? The connection with practice is often lost. 

How did your first few weeks go?

Very intense, but very good. I fell right in with my nose in the butter, because of course there is a lot going on. I was directly involved in the parliamentary treatment of the WTTA in the Lower House. With many motions and amendments, we as NBBU had to be sharp and keep our finger on the pulse.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the WTTA with space support. How does NBBU's position compare to this bill?

First, let me mention that the premise of the WTTA, a licensing system by which you try to separate the wheat from the chaff, is fine. But once again we have managed to turn it into a 'monstrosity'. Think, for example, of that 100,000 euro deposit that has to be deposited. You will literally have more than a billion 'idle money' in the bank soon. With that you completely flatten the entry of new innovative entrepreneurs.

 

I understand the idea of keeping out rogue parties and making entry difficult, but one thing just won't get through: rogue parties exist and will always exist. And these types of parties have one clear characteristic: they ignore the rules. And what is the answer to this? Even more rules. But how likely is it that these rogue parties will now comply with the rules? Zero. It saddles bona fide parties with even more rules and obligations. What we are organizing is the facilitation of even more abuses through the accumulation of rules. Regulatory drift is counterproductive here, because it creates more and more costs for the bona fide entrepreneurs, which only increases the competitive advantage of the rogue parties, because, after all, they do not follow the rules. There is one thing that is really important to combat abuses and that is enforcement! As NBBU, we therefore endorse the principles, but are critical of all the rules and obligations that have been added.

The WTTA is a complex and comprehensive bill, to say the least. Are your members adequately prepared for all the obligations and potential consequences?

Within the NBBU membership, awareness is high, but I feel that "out there" there is a lack of knowledge. I am very concerned about this, by the way. I really wonder if all the organizations that will soon have to deal with this are sufficiently aware of all the details and obligations. This is especially true for companies outside the staffing and placement industry. Too many companies do not know that the WTTA applies to them as well. We have to realize that almost every company that occasionally lends an employee is going to be covered by this law with all its obligations. There is talk of 15,000 to 20,000 companies, but I'm afraid that group is quite a bit larger.

An amendment to explicitly include a broadcast ban in the law was also passed by the House of Representatives by a large majority. With this, a sectoral ban on temping seems another step closer. What does the NBBU think of this development?

As I just indicated, we endorse the conclusions of the Roemer report and the principles of the WTTA. We said the same to the Lower House earlier. But amending the law to include temporary employment bans is really a bridge too far for us. It is also practically unfeasible in many sectors. We cooperate with the WTTA, but please do not impose even more rules and obligations on us. Don't go over it again. So we are resolutely against a ban on broadcasting. Because where do you draw the line? Where does a sector stop? We will also point that out to the Senate.

Where does this Hague regulatory frenzy come from anyway? And why is there always insufficient attention to enforcing the rules?  

There is a political reality and a practical reality. In the political reality, everything works on paper, but the practicality is not always beneficial and desirable. It is also partly to do with a kind of political reflex: there is a fuss, abuses are reported, for example, and then there is always a call for additional measures and rules. After all, it is a way for MPs to show that they are actively working on an issue, often with very good intentions. But the solution to many problems is not always found in more rules. How does it work out in practice? And is the rule going to achieve the purpose for which it was intended? Those are very crucial questions. And as we pile up all these rules, it becomes increasingly difficult to enforce it all. It's much more effective to enforce existing rules than to add new rules on paper.

The WTTA aside. In fact, there is also a lot going on around the issue of false self-employment and the Tax Administration's enforcement since the beginning of this year. Are you noticing unrest among your members now that the enforcement moratorium has expired?

Sure. You saw, especially after all the media coverage, that hiring organizations did panic and stopped hiring self-employed workers. The panic has subsided a bit, but the uncertainty remains. Again, you see a disconnect between wishful thinking and what the intended outcomes are in practice. It remains a major risk for organizations if it turns out that a self-employed person is an employee after all, with all the consequences that entails. Incidentally, I do not want to deny that there are no abuses in the labor market, but I do believe that these distressing cases occur mainly at the bottom of the labor market. That is where we need to focus in particular. That is why we also support the legal presumption of employment below a certain hourly rate. This limit of about €38 is very good in my opinion. Incidentally, we think it is fair to introduce a legal presumption of entrepreneurship above that hourly rate, for example.

Finally, I also want to talk about a contract-neutral system. The NBBU has been advocating such a system for some time. Why is that important?

The majority of self-employed people have very consciously chosen self-employment. They value autonomy and flexibility. This automatically raises the question to what extent our labor market facilitates this group. The discussion about false self-employment has a strong fiscal and labor law character, and we have been working for decades to deal properly with the testing of the employment relationship. You really can't escape thinking about a contract-neutral system, in which all workers, regardless of their form of contract, simply contribute to the social security system. You then get rid of the whole discussion about the qualification question. You have guaranteed that all workers contribute to social security and vulnerable workers have a safety net.

How will you convince The Hague of such a system?

I remain modest about this, for I don't think I am capable of immediately turning the political-social debate on this. But I will certainly make an active contribution to the discussion. The difficult thing is that this discussion is being conducted from very deeply dug trenches. From the NBBU we will continue to point out the rapid changes in the labor market, the consequences of all the regulation and the opportunities of a contract-neutral system, because those opportunities are great. It meets the needs of many workers and offers people more freedom of choice. Furthermore, I want to forge many coalitions. We already enjoy working with parties such as the ABU, VvDN, Bovib and RIM, but I also want to forge alliances outside that field.

What would you like to give politicians and policy makers in The Hague?

If we want a well-functioning labor market, we must be willing to eliminate rules instead of introducing new ones. We must dare to take a fresh look at that labor market: what do workers want in 2025? And what fits with that in terms of regulations? And even more important: can we enforce those rules? Rules that cannot be enforced provoke abuse and that is the core of the current problem.

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