Labor law professor Ruben Houweling: "The labor market needs a delta plan, not band-aid legislation"

That contract neutrality is alive and well in increasingly wider circles is obvious. From politics, civil society and the marketplace, the cry for a more level playing field for working people is getting louder and louder. But how do you get there, especially in an era when many topics have a high degree of political sensitivity?

Labor law professor Ruben Houweling at Erasmus University Rotterdam argues that in order to move from the old to the new, we will have to move on several fronts simultaneously at alternating speeds. According to him, this will not happen with "sticking plasters," but by means of a multi-year delta plan for the labor market. In conversation with Oifik Youssefi of HeadFirst Group, he explains why the Work Code can be the starting point for such a large-scale system overhaul.

Ruben, what prompted you to design the Code of Work?

The Wet Werk en Zekerheid of 2015 gave vooral a legal answer to a societal problem. It was based on the old thinking: you are either employee or self-employed. But that dualism no longer fits the reality of the here and now. Instead of just criticizing from the sidelines, we formulated an alternative with a group of colleagues. The idea: not the contract central, but the worker himself. The Code of Work is thus not just a collection of proposals, but an impetus for a kind of delta plan for the labor market. A fundamental revision at the system level. The remarkable thing is that almost parallel to this project, the Borstlap Commission in late 2019 saw the light of day. A number of members from our organization also participated in that commission which raised overlap questions; however, we were actually asked to continue the elaboration of the Labor Code.

Why do you think such a fundamental review is necessary?

Because the Society is now fundamentally changing. A large and far-reaching example: we are aging. That makes informal care - such as informal care - is growing; wemployed are more mobile than ever. At the same time, the labor market continues to pivot on early 20e century rules, when the labor market was much industrialr was . On top of that, we continue to use legislation to treat symptoms. Constantly new patchworks under the guise of"fixed less fixed", "flex less flex". As if the problem is in the form of contract. While we actually need a new main structure. As far as I'm concerned, that's the time to talk about such a delta plan.

And that's why you choose the term "worker" in that context?

Yes. The category "worker" breaks through thinking in legal pigeonholes. It makes it possible to think policy-wise from participation, not from contract form. In doing so, you can still differentiate. Someone who works occasionally needs less protection than someone who works for the same client for five years. But you organize it from the outside in, not from the inside out. That is essential for a system that has to last.

You also link that directly to social security. How then?

Because social security currently leans too much on contract definitions. But the risks - such as disability - are not contract-based. We propose to cover those risks collectively, through a generic safety net. Everyone contributes. No basic income, but: protection based on risk. The system must be based on trust and reciprocity. Those who will not cooperate in recovery or retraining can be called on their own resources. That makes it not charity, but a robust public arrangement. That too is a building block of the delta plan I advocate. Something like this also requires political decisiveness and goodwill; after all, you can't just switch from the old to the new. There will undoubtedly be a transition period during which all the discomfort that such a change entails reveals itself. This is bound to meet with resistance, but that doesn't matter as long as there is a clear long-term goal is in place.

Does such an approach fit within existing institutions?

Not without question. That's why we are introducing the idea of the 'Work Hub'. One integrated gateway where workers can go for support, perspective and reorientation. Not three counters at three agencies. And these hubs can also be sector-specific or locally anchored. The form is flexible. What counts is integrality. And that is exactly the type of institutional infrastructure that belongs to a Delta Plan: scalable, adaptive and coherent.

In the context of infrastructure changes, what do you think of proposals such as the VBAR, which seek to give greater shape to the employment relationship test between client and contractor?

The VBAR is trying to create more certainty by drawing the line employee/self-employed more sharply. In itself, I welcome any clarification on this issue, because it has been talked about for too long and no decisions have been taken. This is not good for the worker and the employer. Rather, I would have liked us to take advantage of this uncertainty to introduce the concept of "worker. The High Raad has come up with Deliveroo and Uber that you may look more broadly at the context of a working relationship. In this, a worker as a concept fits very well. Again so a kind of ordering in which the worker himself is the starting point, and not his legal status.

An important step forward in social security for many is mandatory disability insurance for the self-employed. How do you view this?

Good in principle. But it should really contract-neutral. Fairness and proportionality are in arranging social security collectively. So that AOV should be part of a broader safety net. What we should not do is stack schemes without an overview. We must rearrange social security from a single logic. That is not a detail measure, but core of the delta plan I referred to earlier.

You would think: you have a ready-made approach with the Work Code. What makes implementation of the Employment Code then difficult?

(Political) time and willingness to change. This requires a multi-year path. That's why you have to start small: social security, safety nets, institutional cooperation. From there you can build toward labor law and contract position. Such a phased construction also makes it possible to bring the constituency along step by step. And it is more honest: you don't change everything in one fell swoop, but open up a route. That is what a good delta plan involves.

In the context of future expectations: what do you hope we say about this phase in 2030?

That we did not shy away from the discomfort of transition. And that we will, as soon as we can, begin thinking beyond the boxes. If we then look back and say: this was the moment we decided to future-proof the labor market - the Work Code has succeeded in its role as a catalyst for that larger plan. It is not a blueprint. It is an impetus for structural renewal. And that is what the Netherlands needs.

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

Labor law professor Ruben Houweling: 'The labor market needs a delta plan, not band-aid legislation'