4 ms·
It's a stipulated requirement in most cases but enforcement of rules for employers is massively underfunded, so companies that don't have to deal with a union a
by bux93 3y ago
It's a stipulated requirement in most cases but enforcement of rules for employers is massively underfunded, so companies that don't have to deal with a union aren't bothered that much by regulations.
Government workers are well organized and don't notice that the rules they thought up (and are responsible for having enforced) actually are ignored by most non-government employers.
In fact, government is usually calling for a more flexible labor market, even though the Dutch labor market is among the most flexible in the EU (if not the most flexible as, again, any costs to getting rid of employees in an illegal fashion are neglible in the first place. They are also not enforced at all unless the illegally fired employee has the wherewithal to sue. Which is not trivial for lower paid people as access to subsidized legal help has been slashed. And even if you have a fixed term/hour contract, no country has as many temps and contractors which can be shown the door by the people paying their fees, which leads to unhealthy power dynamics with their immediate employer as well.)
So yes, in theory (and for government workers in practice) it's all nice.
- WJW 3y agoIt is only anecdotal evidence of course but I went for 24 hours a week back in 2019 and my employer (a ~unicorn scale-up in the Amsterdam region) was not fussed about it at all. I'm a software dev and was one of the two employees with in-depth knowledge about a crucial part of the stack, so I had more leverage than most, but still the response was so much "yeah of course, we have to allow this by law" that I would be surprised if any of my colleagues would have had a different response.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]