European Politics

@Forostar I've been trying to find some information on the Dutch Flexwet system, but the only decent reports I can find are ten years old. Is there any public evaluation in the Netherlands about the pros and cons, and how flexwerkers fare in the system?
 
Before I can answer your question I will already say that this is some sort of political issue at the moment. Many people prefer to have a permanent job, but lots of companies are only/mostly providing flexible employment in the last years, which has to do with several factors I am not fully knowledgeable about (atm).
I thought employers don't dare to take the risk of having to pay costs when (e.g.) workers get sick for a long time. It's cheaper for an employer to hire a flexworker.

I'll try to get back to your question this weekend. If I can't find English info, I'll to translate some.

EDIT:



Wet flexibiliteit en zekerheid | Flexwet
De Wet flexibiliteit en zekerheid, de Flexwet, from 1999
Here a Dutch language page about this law:
http://www.flexnieuws.nl/2012/01/11/wet-flexibiliteit-en-zekerheid-flexwet/#.WN-K2vKtuO2
And the law itself (downloadable):
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009612/

Follow-up law (2015):
Wet Werk en Zekerheid | WWZ
This law (policy) has come under criticism since it influenced the balance permanent work and flex work a great a deal.
Here a Dutch language page explaining the updates:
http://www.flexnieuws.nl/2016/10/23/wet-werk-en-zekerheid-wwz/#.WN-KiPKtuO0
And the law itself (downloadable):
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0035254

I will explain upsides and downsides later and will try to find experiences.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Before I can answer your question I will already say that this is some sort of political issue at the moment. Many people prefer to have a permanent job, but lots of companies are only/mostly providing flexible employment in the last years, which has to do with several factors I am not fully knowledgeable about (atm).
I thought employers don't dare to take the risk of having to pay costs when (e.g.) workers get sick for a long time.

I'll try to get back to your question this weekend. If I can't find English info, I'll to translate some.
Click to expand...

That's what I expected. In Germany, there is a massive problem with non-permanent labour, and recent laws have been passed by our so-called Social Democrats which are supposed to make things better, but just created more loopholes. Critics oftentimes respond with a vague "we should do it like in Holland" or "The Netherlands got it right", but of course never mention any specifics, let alone references.

Flexible employment has its purpose, of course, to fill peak demands at certain times of the year, and I'm not per se against the idea. However, in Germany, from 2005 onward, the laws were changed to a point where this sort of employment is no longer used as an aid by companies, but has oftentimes become the norm.
 
Yes, same here. It is expected that the new government (after formation is over ;) ) will try to change the situation.

Perhaps this is a good read, although it is short and not only about flexwet.

http://expatshaarlem.nl/changes-in-dutch-labour-law-2015/

EDIT:
Found two more links in English:
Changes Dutch Labour Law 2o15:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.iamsterdam.com/media/pdf/expatcenter/changes-dutch-labour-law-2015.pdf?la=nl&ved=0ahUKEwiI3KLcmYPTAhVFaxQKHfuaALYQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNF66Yl-5W6TnJ7gbGvuyjs-UmaQ_A

Working in the Netherlands: changes to Dutch labour law
http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/career/articles/working-netherlands-dutch-labour-law-changes
 
Last edited:
Night Prowler said:
According to tomorrow's newspapers, he's 2nd in the polls :D

Aleksandar Vučić (current prime-minister) has 53%, this guy (Ljubiša Preletačević Beli) has 11%. If Vučić gets more than 50%, he will be the new president. He will put someone from his party or someone else who he can control as the new prime-minister and nothing will truly change. If Vučić gets less than 50%, there will be a 2nd round with Vučić and 2nd best candidate.

Current polls are:
Vučić 53%
Beli 11%
Saša Janković (former national ombudsman who is an independent candidate; don't particulary like him but he isn't too bad either) 10,6%
Šešelj (idiot racist nationalist cunt, right wing) 8,7%
Vuk Jeremić (lost the elections to become United Nations Secretary-General, was 2nd; also independent; he's also OK but don't think he's president material) 6,9%
Boško Obradović 3,5% (racist homophobic nationalistic piece of shit excuse for a human, right wing) 3,5%
plus 5-6 more who have no chance.

Šešelj getting into the potential 2nd round is a nightmare scenario. Don't even wanna think about it. I'd honestly rather have Trump as my president than this guy.
Click to expand...
Looks like Vučić is the new president since he has more than 50% in the first round. Janković is 2nd (I voted for him in the end) and Beli is 3rd. Beli who is a joke candidate has more votes than Jeremić who campaigned to become new United Nations Secretary-General :D

The most encouraging thing is the right wingers having a really small amount of votes.
 
My goodness... they are really aiming at making us feel unsafe here.
 
Watching the news, I do get a bit annoyed that whenever the Turkish referendum comes up, all they bother to say about it is it aims to grant Erdogan more power. Yes, that's what it is about, but very little effort is taken to explain to us how a Yes will give him more power, and which consequences a Yes will have besides "more power to the president".
 
The "Yes" vote will approve the following changes to the constitution:
  1. The president no longer will have to pledge impartiality and is granted the right to act as the leader of his political party.
  2. The president is granted the right to sign executive orders without counseling with the parliament.
  3. The president is granted the right to abolish the parliament and force a re-election, without counseling with the parliament.
  4. The president is granted the right to declare state of emergency as many times as he wishes.
  5. The president is granted the right to appoint 4 out of 13 members of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors.
  6. The president is granted the right to decide on the government budget without counseling with the parliament.
  7. The president is granted the right to appoint ministers outside of the parliament.
  8. The amount of votes needed to send the president to the Supreme Court is increased to "2/3 of the parliament".

  1. The president pledges impartiality. Erdoğan is technically unaffiliated with AKP, prime minister Binali Yıldırım acts as the leader. Though Erdoğan has acted in an unconstitutional manner ever since his election as the president.
  2. The president has no such right.
  3. The parliament decides on its own to go to a re-election.
  4. The president has to consul the parliament to declare state of emergency.
  5. Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors has 22 members instead of 13 and the president is allowed to appoint 3.
  6. The parliament votes on the budget.
  7. All ministers are elected parliament members.
  8. You currently need about 1/2 of the votes to send the president to the Supreme Court.

The changes effectively end almost any legislative power the parliament has and allows the president to have increased control over the judicial system. There are some less important changes as well, like the increasing of the MPs from 550 to 600, but the ones above are the critical ones.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding that Erdoǧan tries to argue that the proposed constitutional changes are aimed at strengthening democracy. Now we all know that's bollocks, but I am curious - how does he argue that depriving the parliament of its powers serves democracy? Or am I right in my assumption that he's not addressing this issue and hasn't directly been asked about it (e.g. in an interview)?
 
Perun said:
It's my understanding that Erdoǧan tries to argue that the proposed constitutional changes are aimed at strengthening democracy. Now we all know that's bollocks, but I am curious - how does he argue that depriving the parliament of its powers serves democracy? Or am I right in my assumption that he's not addressing this issue and hasn't directly been asked about it (e.g. in an interview)?
Click to expand...

He does address it. He argues that the proposal strengthens the parliament. Somehow.

When asked about the lack of checks and balances in the new system, he says "People's votes are the checks and balances." Democracy = Tyranny of the majority, basically.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top