Fundamental rights of social partners

Participants described the well-established Dutch model of social dialogue, building on the tripartite Economic and Social Committee (SER), the bilateral Labour Foundation (StdvA) at national level, collective bargaining at sectoral and company level, and the role of work councils at company level. They agreed that relations were very cordial in discussions between the government, employers’ organisations and trade unions. One participant explained that the absence of any reference to representativeness or independence criteria for unions in law made it easier for some employers to bypass the right to form or join trade unions. Unions were highly organised, very open to dialogue and mostly tended to turn to strikes only as a last resort. Some participants mentioned “yellow unions”, set up sporadically with money from employers to seal collective bargaining agreements. Participants considered that the Dutch model of social dialogue has traditionally had good links with political decision-making, with past governments building on social partners’ agreements as a basis for law-making and implementation. There was, however, a fear that this approach might be called into question in the country’s new political landscape. Uncertainty about political follow-up on social dialogue agreements could disincentivise compromise amongst the social partners. The social partners tended to have more similar views amongst themselves on the need for migrant workers to plug the gaps caused by labour shortages than they had with the rest of society and the political class. Social dialogue had not escaped the trend towards rising tensions in society, there being increased division within the different social partners’ groups memberships in between dialogue-oriented views and the uncompromising ones. A slight rise in social conflict in the country had been attributed to actions to seek compensation for loss of buying power, notably due to inflation. References were also made to a general feeling in the population, in particular amongst the middle class, that there had been progressive erosion of Dutch social standards, with fewer options for stability in life in many spheres, including employment, housing and health. One participant considered that the Netherlands might be considered a testing ground for new forms of flexible work in Europe. In that connection, the question of labour rights coverage for the large number of self-employed people was considered crucial, with the social partners present at the meeting agreeing on the need to avoid creating a less-protected sub-category in between employers and workers. The Dutch authorities indicated that they are currently working on labour market reforms Another participant believed that platform workers and other vulnerable workers such as migrants were deemed to be more likely to be victims of discrimination or intimidation for being part of a trade union – a tendency which was thought to be overall on the rise. That participant felt that some platforms had engaged in an antiunion discourse to discourage workers from opting in to coverage by a judicial decision on their status.