Since the beginning of this year, I am an independent
freelance ICT consultant, who works via The Future Group. The Future Group is a
chain of independent partnerships (i.e. ‘maatschap’ in Dutch) in the ICT industry,
all consisting of freelance consultants who cooperate, based upon their specialties
in ICT. Within The Future Group there is a Testing partnership, an Oracle
partnership, an Agile partnership, a Java partnership etc. Well, you get the
picture.
Last year I made the decision to become a freelance
professional, after being increasingly fed up with my then employer for their
flawed corporate strategy and their inability to adapt to the changing world in
the ICT industry, as well as to the opportunities that the future offered.
When I indeed became independent, I did so with the
typical halfheartedness and doubts of someone, who worked the large majority of
his career for a company with all the perks and steadiness that a fixed
contracts offers: I wanted to become freelancer very much, but I was afraid of not
succeeding in it.
In the first quarter, I had what you could call a ‘shaky’
start, with a first assignment that ended much earlier than anticipated, due to
a budgetary shortage within my department. After that I spent three months
without an assignment and I definitely endured some periods with pessimism and
doubt during that time. Nevertheless, I knew that my time would come, as it
always did.
I was raised in a family of moderately optimistic, middle
class people with a strong will, a good heart and 100% honest, hard-working
genes. One of the most important lessons I learned from my parents is: ‘for
every door that is shut, another door is opened’. Until now I have always stuck
to that lesson.
And this indeed happened in June of this year. Fortunately,
I found a new assignment at a wonderful banking
office in the heart of the country and I am now increasingly happy with my new future
as freelancer.
Yet, I cannot advice everybody to do as I did: to
become freelancer. Especially people without any financial reserves should not
do it and neither should people who are very susceptible for stress – stress chickens
as they are called in (translated) Dutch.
People who feel desperate without a fixed contract job
with some guarantees built in and without the safety net, offered by the basic,
social security that is common in The Netherlands. These people should not become
freelancer, as the stress of losing their assignment – sometimes after a few weeks
or months – would make them feel unhappy and perhaps even ill eventually.
Yet, at this moment we are in a time in which many economic
pundits and well-educated knowledge workers, many executive managers and many
companies as a whole think that a world of totally flexible labour is the inevitable
future… And that anybody who does not comply to this future is an outcast,
without proper chances on the future labour markets.
This is the reason that the ‘utopian’ world – for many
companies and executive managers – of totally flexible labour is a dystopian
future for the many workers, who cannot mentally handle not having security and
don’t want to live in such a world.
Therefore I think that the endorsers of the totally
flexible labour markets are dead wrong…
Personally, I don’t think that the future will consist
of flexible labour alone. There will always be room for workers and companies,
who remain loyal to each other: the companies by offering fixed contracts to
their workers, educating and training them and sticking with them in good and
bad times. And the workers, by working for the same company during their whole
career and giving their best shot every day. Is that a bad thing?! Of course,
it isn’t.
(Executive) managers, who see their workers as the
heart of their company and who invest in them through a decent remuneration and
excellent training opportunities, are rewarded with loyal and caring personnel,
which is often willing to work a step or two harder, when this is required by
their bosses.
Loyalty is not only when workers work hard for their
companies every day, but also when these workers think and talk about the
future of their company and give their honest opinions, without shying away for
positive (and sometimes even negative) criticism. So many defaulted companies
would still have survived, when they would have listened to their personnel
more closely.
Although flexible workers can also be very loyal to
their principals, they will never reach the state of loyalty that workers with
fixed contracts will, from their nature. Denying that is unwise…
But on top of this primary layer of personnel with
fixed contracts, that will never disappear in my humble opinion (!), there will
almost always be a layer of flexible workers out of choice and desire: people,
who thrive in different environments and deeply enjoy having ample chances to
learn something new and beyond their comfort zone. And people who get bored
doing the same job for more than a few years in a row. That is a good thing too,
as these flexible workers give the company room to breathe.
In the future, such a layer of workers with flexible contracts
will remain necessary for small and large companies, in order to survive
periods with fluctuating demand for their products and services. And also for
companies that have sudden peaks in their demand for a.o. ICT services, under
influence of the law, market developments and/or their competition. But this flexibility
is not the ideal solution for all workers and consultants.
In order to have a fair possibility to choose between a
fixed and flexible future, the keywords for workers are ‘freedom of choice’. I
had a fair possibility to choose for a flexible future and so I did; with heart
and mind.
But consultants with fixed contracts, who were ‘fired
and hired back’ as freelance consultants did not have a fair choice. And
neither did workers in the building industry, the postal services or the
healtcare, homecare and facilitary services industry, who became freelancers ‘at
gunpoint’ , in order to keep their jobs.
The latter are definitely excesses of the enduring
economic crisis and the panic that this caused among many commercial services,
transport and building companies.
And having freedom of choice means also that some
people don’t want to choose for flexibility, for all the right reasons.
Last week was the week of the King’s Annual Speech
about the ‘State of the Kingdom’.
In the eyes of The Future Group – my current employer at
which I reside as a partner – it had been a very disappointing speech, as it
did not give enough attention to the Dutch labour market and its trend towards
more flexibility.
The executive management of The Future Group printed an
official response to the King’s Speech, of which I print the pertinent
snippets, accompanied by my comments.
Impulses
for a future-proof labour market policy are lacking.
In
the Spending Bill for The Netherlands (aka The Miljoenennota), it is stated
that the way in which people work is changing rapidly. Fixed contracts on the
labour market are less and less standard and the number of freelance
professionals and flexible contracts is growing. The Bill points at the growing
oppression of lower and medium educated people, in favour of higher educated
workers, as a consequence of a shift in demand and supply, especially due to
technological developments.
On
top of that, it states that the chance that people are forced to accept a
flexible contract, is growing. In the process, politics is first and foremost looking
at forced independence and fake constructions. In other words, to the threats
surrounding the rapidly growing numbers of freelancers, instead of looking at
the chances that are lying ‘around the corner’ for independent knowledge
workers. We doubt whether the current labour market policy is meeting the
requirements of the ongoing paradigm shift towards more flexibility in the Dutch
labour market.
My
comments: I sympathize with the opinion of The Future Group (TFG)
and I know that they are very interested in reading much more about the chances
and opportunities for well-educated, freelance knowledge workers and about the
way in which the Dutch government will enable this development towards more
flexibility for highly educated personnel.
I understand that the executive management of TFG is
therefore disappointed about the contents of the Spending Bill. Still, the keywords
here are again ‘freedom of choice’, in my humble opinion. There is not a single
freelance worker within The Future Group, who was forced at gunpoint to become
freelancer. Really…
Yet, there are numerous workers in the building industry,
numerous homecare workers and numerous postmen, who did not have the luxury of this
freedom of choice. Therefore it is very important that the government
sympathizes with them and looks carefully after their situation indeed; even
when this care is not exactly translated in the most sensible policies yet.
The
Advice department of the Council of State (i.e. Raad van State) mentions that
the growing number of freelance professionals has also been the consequence of
the faltering functioning of the existing political arrangements on a labour
market that comprises of increasingly diverse labour relations. This Advice
body also states that this should not lead to a desire among the central government
“to bring this phenomenon back to a pattern in which the classic labour
agreement is the standard (i.e. the fixed labour contract)”.
My
comments: I am very aware that the world has changed during this
enduring economic crisis, that already lasts for seven years. Flexible labour
became more and more important for companies in their struggle for survival and
this is a development that will probably not change in the coming years.
However, where The Future Group looks at this
development from a positive stance – hence, flexible professional labour is of
course TFG’s core business – I think that the government has the responsibility
to both stimulate the freelancers ‘out of free choice’ and protect the ‘basically
against their will’ freelancers from employers ‘playing for keeps’ at the
expense of their personnel.
On top of that, in my humble opinion it is much too
early to declare the fixed labour contract ‘dead and buried’…
At this very moment the demand for flexible personnel
is soaring and I have little doubt that the demand for fixed personnel will
grow again too, in a few months or years. As I stated before, no personnel is
more loyal than the personnel of a goodhearted employer, having a fixed
contract. Many employers will soon learn that lesson when their flexible
personnel demands a better remuneration and education ‘or else’ …
Fake
constructions will be a thing of the past in 2016, according to State Secretary
Wiebes, as there will be the ‘model agreement’ in which, next to the freelance
entrepreneur, also the trade and industry will be kept responsible. It is the
question, however, whether this will
indeed lead to an improvement, as yet again the fixed labour agreement is the
standard, instead of flexibilisation. This summer, professor Sweder van
Wijnbergen of the University of Amsterdam stated “that the current, fixed
labour contract, in which Minister Lodewijk Asscher of Social Affairs want to
keep everybody, became internationally untenable”.
 |
| Professor Sweder van Wijnbergen, photographed during BNR Newsroom in January 2013 Picture copyright of Ernst Labruyère Click to enlarge |
A
recent inquiry, held among one hundred
Medium and Large Enterprises by The Future Group, pointed out that 85% of these
companies is looking for an intermediate form, in which companies can bind people,
without falling back in the limitations of the current labour agreement.
The
current national policy is aimed at the stimulation of steady jobs with fixed
contracts at the expense of hampering the increase of the number of freelance professionals.
During the economic crisis, according to many the crisis itself was the cause
for forced independence of personnel. In the meantime it became clear that the
number of freelancers remains growing after the crisis and that flexibilization
is a social-cultural phenomenon. Society changes, there is a growing
individualism and a strong demand for self-development: having a profession of
one-self. With the current policy, the Cabinet does nothing, thus missing a
chance to reinforce the Dutch trade and industry.
As I mentioned earlier in this article, the government
has the responsibility to both stimulate the freelancers ‘out of free choice’
and protect the ‘basically against their will’ freelancers from employers ‘playing
for keeps’ at the expense of their personnel.
Of course, 85% of the companies wants more flexibility and
less impeding statements in their labour contracts. These companies should
remember, however, that many people among their personnel are suckers for a
kind of security and some job guarantees, so that they know they can pay the
next mortgage and energy bill and will not be tossed away like a pair of old
boots.
What the Dutch government should do first and foremost is
diminishing the risks of hiring people under a fixed contract. For instance by
reducing the time that companies are responsible for the remuneration of their
fixed personnel in case of non work-related illness and injuries.
A one-man business is reluctant to contract fixed personnel,
when it remains responsible for long term salary payments in case of illness or
injury. Two sick personnel members and the business can close. So a future health
insurance act should offer a better safety net for these small businesses than
the current one does.
With the last paragraph, TFG is preaching for its own
parish of highly educated and intelligent freelancers ‘out of their own choice’.
People like me and others.
However, not everybody is cheering for such a future of
total flexibility and independence, without a social safety net. For many lower
educated people this is rather a source for worries and discomfort than a
bright future. Therefore Dutch politics should not see flexible labour as THE
single future of labour. It simply isn’t …
While I agree with TFG that the Dutch government should
not hamper the emergence of satisfied, highly educated freelance professionals ‘out
of choice’ with stringent regulation, the same government has a heavy duty to
protect vulnerable people from selfish employers, which don’t want to invest one
penny too much in their own personnel.
As I stated before, for some people a freelance or
flexible contract is nothing less than a nightmare, which keeps them awake at
night during times of low employment. These people ought to have fixed
contracts, in which they can show their loyalty and hard labour to their loyal employers.
Flexible labour is not and will not be the cure for every problem in the Dutch
trade and industry, so it should not be treated like that.
Simply put, there will always be fixed labour
contracts; not in the last place for all those executive managers who are
pleading for more flexibility in the labour market. These guys and ladies certainly
don’t want to have their own jobs at stake, wouldn’t they?!
Besides that, I am also convinced that many companies
will rethink their flexible labour strategy, when their flexible personnel runs
away during a strong demand market, looking for much higher wages…
Flexibility works in two directions and at least one of
those two directions is not always the right one….
No comments:
Post a Comment