“A false start,” says Willems resolutely when asked about the government’s first hundred days. The De Unie board member has absolutely no sympathy for the government’s plans for social security. “We’re facing bigger challenges, such as the housing and energy crises. Instead of tackling those, the government is making an issue out of something that isn’t a financial problem at all.”
Bart Willems has been working for the De Unie trade union and the VCP trade union confederation since 2007. In this role, he represents the interests of employees in a wide range of sectors, including manufacturing, financial services, aviation, engineering and business services.
Minority government
According to Willems, the coalition parties were warned about the challenges facing a minority government: “Indeed, the coalition agreement explicitly states that they wanted to engage in dialogue with the trade unions. You will have to find your majorities. When it comes to social security, you shouldn't just reach out to the opposition, but also to the trade unions. In that context, an opening offer of €6.5 billion in spending cuts impacting the core of social security is not very dignified. The government then entrenched itself, leaving it now completely stuck.”
Polarisation
In an interview with the NOS, professor Claes de Vreese noted that it is not at all in the Dutch culture to work with a minority cabinet, as is the case in Denmark. According to Willems, on top of that,“
Internal conflict
Willems also sees considerable conflict within the coalition itself. “On the one hand, they say ‘we are open to dialogue’ when it comes to the WIA, for example. Then the VVD calls out, ‘but the €6.5 billion remains and must be found within the SZW budget.’ You won't reach an agreement with each other in that way.” The coalition does not appear to be united when it comes to reforms in the Netherlands and is taking a big risk, according to Willems. “The cabinet is not taking the lead; it says we must cut back and then looks to others to implement it. That doesn't suit a minority coalition.”
Middle incomes
Austerity measures hit everyone hard, but particularly those in the middle income brackets. A measure such as the 20% cut to the maximum daily wage affects middle and higher earners in particular. “And we’re not talking about millionaires or top bankers, but about the teacher, the engineer, the IT specialist, the maintenance specialist in industry or the airport staff member. People with good jobs who provide our education, keep our businesses running and make our economy strong,” says Willems. “Even if you look at the broader picture, middle-income earners are suffering under the current policy. For some time now – including from Europe – there have been calls for people to become more financially responsible. So, as a professional, you respond to that and end up with Plans like that for box 3 confronted.”
Willems: “Our constituents often cannot fall back on allowances and provisions that are arranged, particularly for lower incomes. Now you are also depriving the middle group of the opportunity to take control, something which you as a government have always urged.”
Unpredictable
“Politics has been unpredictable for a long time now. And you can't make it any more unpredictable than this,” says Willems. “You made an agreement, a deal on the state pension age in the Pension Agreement. The situation has actually only improved in the meantime. All the figures are green; we are in a good financial position according to the forecasts. And then the government declares that it is unsustainable and that you want to break open the agreement. Although the government has withdrawn this proposal, the Sword of Damocles still hangs over it. This is precisely what I mean by an unpredictable government. People no longer understand and that is reflected, for example, in the declining tax morality, as shown by our annual survey of spending security (pdf). ”This is really worrying."
“The unpredictability is also reflected in social security policy. Employees have paid premiums and insured themselves; then you take away their security. And why? Because there is a budget challenge. Economists pick holes in the government's numerical justification. That social security would not be affordable is simply untrue. Moreover, it is a political choice to consider it unaffordable. The question is: do we want to have a good welfare state? A pleasant country to live in; where we have security, where you are looked after if things go wrong, and where you can save for your old age. If you want that, then it is worth something and a choice to spend money on it.
Positive agenda
Willems would prefer the government to focus on what the VCP and De Unie refer to as a positive agenda. Willems: “The influx into the WIA scheme is partly linked to the fact that we are working for longer. If you raise the retirement age, you shouldn’t be surprised that more people drop out of the workforce during their careers. There are also people who would like to return to work but do not always receive the guidance, assessment or support they need in good time. These are the problems we need to tackle. Not by cutting back, but by investing in prevention, reintegration and sustainable employability. If we want to increase labour force participation, we need to focus on how we can prevent people from dropping out of the labour market and offer them prospects of work more quickly.”
“You will have to look at workload and work-life balance. Productivity can be increased by making positive use of AI. Let's invest in that instead of making everything more meagre. Otherwise, we will have solved it financially, but the core of the problem will remain. Then people will still drop out.”
An example of such an investment is the Regional work centres. “De Unie and the VCP are involved in 10 of the 35 job centres under the ‘Toekomstproof’ scheme. People can go there for free career advice. In this way, as social partners, we are fulfilling our responsibility to support the ”From job to job‘ initiative.’ The coalition agreement includes ‘From work to work’ and “Lifelong Development”, but these plans must first be adequately translated into everyday practice. “The current debate is overshadowing what this should really be about: the root of the problem. Let’s tackle the causes of the problems first. Let the positive agenda do its work.”
This article was previously published on the website of our trade union centre the Virtual Channel Protocol
