The new labor law of Minister Wouter Koolmees (Social Affairs and Employment) does not seem to have the support of the opposition.
The parties are particularly critical of the decrease in the dismissal law, according to Thursday during the treatment of labor law in the House of Representatives.
Through the law, which in the heat of is called Wet arbeid in balans (WAB), the cabinet wants to make flexwork less flexible and less permanent permanent jobs. That balance is already lost, says Koolmees. It has become too difficult for employees to obtain a contract for an indefinite period, while the number of flexible contracts, such as a zero-hour contract, payment of vacancies or a temporary contract, continues to increase.
How to deal with the growing number of self-employed workers is dealt with in a separate law.
The room does not support parts of the law
Many parts of the law expanded with a total of eleven proposals were supported by a large part of the House. This has been applied, for example, to the proposal to make flexible work more expensive through the unemployment premium. The home also wants salaried employees to receive the same employment conditions, including the pension premium, as their colleagues from the company they work for.
The proposal to accumulate a compensation payment from the first day you are in charge could also count on good support. Now it behaves these rights from two years.
Nobody disputes that something has to be done about the ever increasing gap between fixed and flex. The differences in the House were only clear when the relaxation of the law of dismissal took place.
Now, an entrepreneur can only dismiss someone based on one of the eight reasons for dismissal. In the plans of Koolmees these reasons can be combined. "That is a tough attack on employee rights," said European Parliament MP Bart van Kent. GroenLinks, PvdA, 50PLUS and DENK have also been very critical at this point.
The parties see nothing in the payment of the maximum separation
The parties also want to renounce the highest compensation for dismissal that a judge can adjudicate if there are multiple grounds for dismissal.
The highest compensation is actually limited to 150 percent of the total amount. The member of PvdA, Gijs van Dijk, wants to give the judges the right to determine the height, with the idea that a higher amount can also be assigned. According to Van Dijk, senior employees who are harder to join a new job are also served there.
Compensation for dismissal will be a third monthly salary per employee for each year, which is a reduction for employees who have been employed for a long time.
According to Koolmees, this maximum compensation payment is necessary for the legal security and predictability of entrepreneurs. You feel supported by the advice, among others, of the Council of State and the Council for the Judiciary.
Once it's easier to lay off employees, employers are more willing to give a permanent contract, Koolmees thinks. According to him, this is not at the expense of employee protection, because the judge still performs the same test.
The intention to extend the trial period of two to five months was dragged quickly. After the labor market experts have already been critical, the opposition has also come to the conclusion to get this idea. Great Tit did not have to think too much about the debate to accommodate the parties in this.
Majority in the Senate after the uncertain elections
Next Tuesday, there will be a vote on the law. The opposition could agree with some points, but you only have the option to admit or not the complete package.
It seems that Koolmees receives little support from the opposition. At the moment, this has little effect on support in the House of Representatives, but it can have important consequences if the law is dealt with in the Senate.
There the coalition now has most of just one seat, but the chances are very high that this proportion will change after the Senate elections on May 27.
GroenLinks journalist Paul Smeulders has made this understand in the debate. According to him, it could "be" that the Senate does not agree with the relaxation of the dismissal law.
Consequently, it is questionable whether the coalition and the cabinet can direct labor law before the elections through both houses.