Flexibilitzation of Work: Leave It, Love It, Change It

Mia Rönnmar and Jenny Julén Votinius, Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning, Juristförlaget i Lund (2017)

18 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2019

See all articles by Miriam Kullmann

Miriam Kullmann

Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Law, Social Law Division; affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: 2017

Abstract

Current developments in the world of work seem to imply that flexible work relationships are inexorably on the rise. Digitalization and new technologies have led to an increasingly diverse landscape of work forms, questioning the role, and in particular the scope, of labour laws in protecting ‘new’ workers. This contribution rests on the belief that the ongoing flexibilization of work is an irreversible fact, one that has to be addressed properly. This is even more so with a view to the criticisms that have been voiced about flexibilization trends and their (often detrimental) consequences for some (groups of) workers. That flexibilization may indeed have negative effects has been acknowledged by the EU. While explicitly emphasizing that flexible labour markets facilitate ‘employment creation’, the Annual Growth Survey 2016 also stresses that this should ‘enable transitions towards more permanent contracts’ and ‘not result in more precarious jobs’. It is this statement that has prompted this contribution’s particular focus. The specific concern of this contribution is to explore the EU’s emphasis on permanent employment contracts and the concomitant stimulation to create jobs via new technologies and business models, often involving (new) flexible forms of work. It is therefore apposite to address the question whether resorting to ‘old securities’ in the form of (seemingly well-protected) permanent employment would be counterproductive given the current developments in the world of work – which seem to point towards even more flexibility. Drawing on recent amendments in Dutch labour law, I aim to illustrate that the government’s efforts to limit, in particular, the use of fixed-term employment contracts, and thereby trying to encourage transitions to permanent employment, have been quite unsuccessful. It seems that employers still do – perhaps even more than before – resort to temporary contracts, but then with new workers, or re-hiring former workers after a waiting period, or making use of other forms of flexible work, e.g. self-employment. It is suggested that reverting to ‘old securities’, that is permanent employment, tends to increase the number of employers ‘evading’ protective labour law by relying (even more) on flexible work relationships.

This contribution will proceed as follows. I start by providing a brief overview of the flexibility/security debate at the EU level and the recent emphasis on facilitating more (transitions to) permanent employment (Section 2). As a similar ‘reversing’ trend can be observed in the Netherlands, the adjustments introduced in 2015 to limit (the use of ) fixed-term contracts aims to play an exemplifying role in demonstrating that it is likely that the EU’s aspirations will not materialize (Section 3). Drawing on a range of analytical and critical concepts found in the literature is helpful to identify some challenges that need to be addressed in relation to flexible work relationships (Section 4), but also to discuss the complexity involved in trying to find ‘new securities’ that could benefit not only employers and the state, but workers as well (Section 5). This contribution should be viewed only as a modest attempt to grasp the complexity of the flexibilization of work and to disclose some of its challenges, thereby explicitly encouraging future discussions.

Keywords: flexibility, employment law, EU employment policy, Dutch employment law

Suggested Citation

Kullmann, Miriam and Kullmann, Miriam, Flexibilitzation of Work: Leave It, Love It, Change It (2017). Mia Rönnmar and Jenny Julén Votinius, Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning, Juristförlaget i Lund (2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3356317

Miriam Kullmann (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Law, Social Law Division ( email )

Nijmegen, 6500 KK
Netherlands

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.ru.nl/en/people/kullmann-m

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
32
Abstract Views
271
PlumX Metrics