The in-between job: solution for employers and employees?

In 2015, the Work and Security Act (WWZ) was introduced with the aim of giving people with flexible employment more security. Meanwhile, it appears that employers are not offering more permanent contracts, because it is still too risky and expensive. Recently, there has been talk of a new phenomenon: the "temporary job. Does that solve the problems? Check out the pros and cons with me.

What exactly is the "in-between job"? On April 14, 2017, the Volkskrant introduced the intermediate job in the supermarket industry as a new phenomenon in the labor market. This is a one-time temporary contract for employees for the duration of four years. In addition, the employee is given a budget for training so that he can more easily find another job after four years.

Is such a one-time multi-year contract new? Actually, no. In fact, the law has long provided for the possibility of concluding one long temporary employment contract. It is true that a fixed-term employment contract automatically becomes an employment contract for an indefinite period of time after the expiration of two years, but that only applies if there is a chain of employment contracts (two or more). So one temporary contract of four years, which ends automatically after those four years, is simply already possible.

Employer perspective

Since the introduction of the WWZ, many employers apply the seven-eight-eight construction. The employee then gets three temporary contracts, which together remain just under 24 months. This way, the employer stays away from the permanent contract. Also, no transition fee then needs to be paid if employment is not continued after the third contract. However, in the case of an interim job - after the end of the contract - an employer does not want to continue with the employee, in principle he has to pay both the training costs and the transition fee. Moreover, you don't just get rid of the employee during employment. What if the employee does not perform well? In that situation, the employer must initiate a process of improvement. If there is no improvement, the court must be asked to terminate the contract. Whether that will succeed in all cases remains to be seen. So I would argue rather for the seven-eight-eight construction, because after three contracts an employer knows very well what he has got with someone. After those three contracts, you can always hire the employee in question indefinitely. So from an employer's perspective, the interim job is not necessarily attractive.

The rigid dismissal system

In the supermarket sector, the gap between permanent and flex is very large. For certain categories of workers, the intermediate job in that sector can be a godsend. Other sectors are best to stay away from the intermediate job. In my opinion, the problem lies much more in the rigid dismissal system introduced by the WWZ. If it were not so complicated to get rid of employees, employers would afford to take more risks in committing employees to themselves. In short: employment, flexibility and security remain fodder for the new governing parties as far as I am concerned!

Are you curious about different employment contract options for your company? I would be happy to think along with you!