•
Yesterday
•
reading time 5 minutes
•
7763 views
•
save
Last week a very nasty piece by the VVD faction leader was published in Algemeen Dagblad. That was about (I quote) ‘that people who work should always improve more than people on benefits. Too much attention has been paid to benefits in income policy, that has to change,” said Ms Yesilgöz. She then strings insinuations together with half-truths and states that the foundation of the labor market has been damaged because benefit recipients have been favored with income support over workers. And then lies that, for example, the energy allowance only went to benefit recipients. The reason for this attack on benefit recipients is anyone’s guess, but I do have a theory about it. I’ll come back to that.
In addition, Yesilgöz states that, because benefit recipients are always compensated, the foundation under the labor market has been removed. There are indeed major, fundamental problems in the labor market. However, these are not caused by the illusion of excessively high benefits, but by excessive flexibility. Fueled by neoliberal VVD policy. Jobs that are too small, insecure jobs, false self-employment, all these things contribute to the fact that working people find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Moreover, flex is the driving force behind inflow into the WW and WIA.
Wages in the Netherlands are too low. The AIQ has been declining for years. In favor of more dividends for shareholders. Nothing complicated about it, but it is a trend that must be reversed and that we as FNV are in the process of reversing. The minimum wage in the Netherlands is too low. The EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages prescribes that the minimum wage in a country should be 60% of the median wage. In the Netherlands that works out to approximately 16 euros per hour. We have to go there.
Employers do not have to pay full wages to workers under the age of 21. Unbelievable, but true. And unacceptable. The social minimum, social assistance, is demonstrably far too low. There are additional regulations for this at municipal level, but these differ per municipality. Sometimes you are entitled to something, sometimes to nothing. A discriminatory postcode lottery.
If you receive social assistance benefits, you are forced to work without pay, sometimes for a long time. This is called the quid pro quo, and is intended to make people feel what they owe to society. We call that working without pay and that is prohibited, but it says everything about how the VVD adage that social assistance is a hammock has taken hold. If you become ill and partially incapacitated for work and still want to work but employers do not like you, you will be punished severely as a sick employee, in your wallet. The same hard-working Dutchman this government is talking about.
Last week, poverty in the Netherlands was spectacularly reduced because the definition was adjusted. Well. Debts are not included in that definition and entire population groups are also left out of the picture. Meanwhile, the debt industry is flourishing. 46% profit is made at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society.
Yes, work should pay. That means raising wages. And raising the minimum wage. And the abolition of the youth wage. Allowances should not be necessary, because that is in fact a subsidy on wages that are too low. In the meantime, the welfare state must be paid for. Money must be added to this, and everyone must do their part in solidarity. High incomes much more than low ones, and also the self-employed. Profit tax must return to 35%.
The welfare state is subject to wear and tear. Benefits in the Netherlands are unbearably low. I have been hearing this from my members for years, but the State Social Minimum Committee has confirmed this. Healthcare is also on the verge of collapse. Even the Healthcare Institute now advises the cabinet – bizarrely – that the right to long-term care should actually depend on whether you have loved ones. We already know this at the WMO. Informal care is a pillar of our welfare state, without having to worry about those 1 million people, mostly women, often working in healthcare, who provide intensive informal care. Women who are punished by the government if they do not work more hours. Because then they miss the full-time bonus advocated by the VVD. In the meantime, they are suffering serious income damage.
The government abuses the idea that work must pay, and working more does not pay, to portray benefit recipients as ‘lab-bes’ who are too lazy to get out of bed. That attack is intended to keep benefits low so that the minimum wage can remain the same. It is not without reason that employers also lobby diligently to keep social assistance unviable. And working more hours, of course, is what many people would want if they were not kept in small contracts by calculating employers. Just like all those informal caregivers who are filling the gaps in our healthcare system.
It must be nice and cozy in the world of the VVD, where society is viewed with like-minded people with a bitterbal in one hand and a glass of prosecco in the other. However, that world is not real life. That is not the reality of hardworking people in our country, of the cleaners, carers or pharmacy employees. It is not the world of sick, incapacitated, young disabled and discarded people.
It is also not the world of the newly enslaved; the migrant workers in our country. The side of migration that this government wants to ignore, because it does not fit into their employers’ agenda. What does fit in there: disgustingly inhumane asylum measures that are thrown up as a smokescreen. And tough language about benefit recipients to disguise the fact that the promises regarding social security are an empty shell.
Just join us. A trade union is for everyone.
The Great Benefit Brouhaha: Who Needs Facts Anyway?
Greetings, my dear audience! Grab your snacks, because we’re diving headfirst into a political potluck that’s tastier than last week’s leftovers – filled with half-truths, hyperbole, and the occasional smattering of reality! We’re addressing the latest kerfuffle stirred up by Ms. Yesilgöz and her VVD faction, as she comfortably perched atop her pedestal of privilege, proclaiming that those who toil day in and day out deserve to get knocked down a peg or two. Because, you know, nothing screams “let’s be a helpful society” like demeaning the poor!
Benefits Be Damned!
So, let’s unpack Ms. Yesilgöz’s thoughts, shall we? She claims that those receiving benefits have it too cushy while hard-working Dutch folks are left clutching their paychecks – or spare change if they’re lucky. Forget about actual statistics showing how many working-class folks are drowning in debts and how many can barely afford to keep the lights on. Who needs factual accuracy when you can twist words more creatively than a circus contortionist?
Oh, and how about this nugget? She states that the energy allowance ONLY went to benefit recipients. Sure, and I suppose cake is exclusively for birthdays too! There are legitimate problems in the labor market, but a ‘your benefits are too high’ mantra isn’t the right diagnosis. Maybe it’s time for a solid examination of this ‘excessive flexibility’ in employment that’s leaving workers scrambling to make ends meet. Is the real issue a hammock, or is the setup more like one of those lounge chairs that give you a crick in the neck?
The Minimum Wage Mystery
Now let’s clear the air about wages – or should I say the lack thereof? Can we just stop pretending that a minimum wage of 16 euros an hour is too much to ask? I mean, that’s just enough to keep you barely alive and scrolling through Instagram wondering how life could be better—like, say, with a proper paycheck? The whole youth wage situation is akin to asking a five-star chef to serve you a gourmet meal while paying them the price of an instant ramen cup. Unacceptable, right?
Postcode Lottery: Not Just for Postmen!
And here’s a delightful twist: welcome to the postcode lottery of benefits! It’s where municipalities play unfair with your social assistance, creating a system that’s as reliable as a chocolate teapot. Some folks get a hand up; others get a ‘sorry, can’t help you’-cue the slapstick sound effect! How charming that we’re still living in a time where assistance can feel more like a game show than an essential service. We’ll accept “consistently inconsistent” for 500, Alex!
Work Should Pay, But It Doesn’t
And speaking of the workplace—for every job that’s offered, there’s another set of unreasonable requirements dangled like a carrot in front of a donkey. Work without pay, called “quid pro quo,” is more like “work without a clue.” It’s hard to believe that we’re still insisting people feel they owe society something when they’re already barely scraping by. Maybe Ms. Yesilgöz could join us for a reality check? Who knows, it might even add some pressure to that glass of prosecco she enjoys!
The Asylum Smokescreen
And don’t even get me started on the migrant workers! While the VVD spins its tape about how hard it is for the everyday worker, they’re conveniently ignoring the plight of those who keep our society afloat with their blood, sweat, and tears (and they aren’t being paid nearly enough for it!). Maybe we should be tackling the real issues—like those inhumane asylum measures that make you question whether we’re living in 2023 or 1923!
Join the Movement!
Ultimately, this isn’t just a critique; it’s a rallying call: let’s demand better! It’s high time we saw benefits as a lifeline, not a curse. Shocking, right? We should be seriously advocating for higher wages, abolishing the youth wage, and paving a clearer road to social justice – where no one is left behind feeling like a government experiment gone wrong!
So, as we say, let’s unite! Trade unions aren’t just for the “elite” white-collar folks; they’re for everyone who’s ever been counted out or belittled. Join us in the fight for fairness and compassion in our labor market because, at the end of the day, we all deserve a hammock that’s actually comfortable—preferably under a nice sun, not forcing you to share it with others who can’t afford their own!
Signing off
Until next time, keep your minds sharp and your sense of humor sharper. After all, laughter is the best medicine, but fair policies are essential for a healthy society!
Last week, a controversial and sharply worded article penned by the VVD faction leader ignited debate after its publication in the Algemeen Dagblad. Ms. Yesilgöz stated, quoting her assertions, that ‘people who work should always earn more than those on benefits.’ She further claimed that there has been an overemphasis on benefits within income policy, advocating for a significant shift in this focus. In her argument, she weaves together insinuations, partial truths, and allegations that the labor market’s foundations have been undermined due to an alleged favoritism towards benefit recipients through income support. She notably misrepresented facts, such as the claim that the energy allowance was exclusively distributed to benefit recipients. While the motives behind her attack on this demographic may be ambiguous, one can speculate—more on that to follow.
Moreover, Yesilgöz asserts that the compensation provided to benefit recipients has effectively destabilized the core of the labor market. There is no denying that there are substantial, systemic issues affecting labor conditions. However, it is critical to recognize that these problems are rooted in the neoliberal policies championed by the VVD, which have fostered a landscape of excessive flexibility. Such a climate has led to precarious jobs, unreliable employment conditions, and a wave of false self-employment, all of which severely hinder workers’ abilities to make a sustainable living. This landscape of instability is a significant driver of the inflow into unemployment benefits (WW) and the Work and Income Act (WIA).
Wages in the Netherlands remain disproportionately low, with the Average Income Quality (AIQ) experiencing a continuous decline over recent years. This trend has primarily favored profits directed toward shareholders rather than workers. Importantly, we at FNV are engaged in efforts to reverse this concerning trend, as the minimum wage currently fails to meet the basic living standards. Under the EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages, countries are mandated to have a minimum wage set at 60% of the median wage. For the Netherlands, this equates to approximately 16 euros per hour—a benchmark we must strive to achieve.
Unacceptably, employers are legally exempt from paying full wages to workers under the age of 21, a situation that is astonishingly unjust. The social minimum for assistance is also strikingly inadequate, with regulations varying significantly depending on the municipality, further creating a convoluted and inequitable system akin to a postcode lottery.
The troubling reality is that if someone receives social assistance, they may be compelled to undertake unpaid work—often for extended periods—as part of a ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement. This concept is intended to instill a sense of obligation to society, but it effectively translates to enforced labor without compensation—a considerable violation of rights. This situation exemplifies the pervasive narrative propagated by the VVD, suggesting that social assistance is merely a ‘hammock’ for the unmotivated. Those who become ill and can only work part-time are often penalized financially by employers who prefer to sidestep such cases, all in stark contrast to the hardworking image celebrated by this government.
Last week, there was a notable yet misleading decrease in reported poverty levels in the Netherlands, attributed to a revised definition that controversially excluded debt considerations. This adjustment has left significant portions of the population unaccounted for, while the debt industry continues to thrive, profiting at an astounding 46% from the most vulnerable groups in society.
Indeed, it is imperative that work truly pays. This requires a concerted effort to raise wages alongside the minimum wage, and the abolishment of the youth wage altogether. Allowances should be rendered unnecessary, effectively serving as subsidies for unreasonably low wages. Simultaneously, it is essential to bolster the welfare state with substantial funding, ensuring equitable contributions from all members of society, particularly those with higher incomes, as well as self-employed individuals. The corporate profit tax must be reinstated to a rate of 35% to aid in this process.
The welfare state is undeniably under strain, with benefit levels in the Netherlands proving intolerably low—a point I have heard reiterated by my members consistently for years. This concern has furthermore been substantiated by the State Social Minimum Committee’s findings. The healthcare system is also reeling from similar pressures. The Healthcare Institute has bizarrely advised the cabinet that access to long-term care should hinge upon the presence of family members—a reality we have witnessed within the WMO framework. Informal caregiving, a crucial pillar of our welfare state, is primarily supported by around 1 million individuals—predominantly women—who deliver substantial care while often sacrificing their financial stability because they are penalized for not meeting the full-time work requirements set by the VVD.
The government is weaponizing the notion that work should inherently pay, painting an unflattering portrait of benefit recipients as ‘lazy’ individuals who lack the initiative to contribute. This campaign serves to justify maintaining unreasonably low benefit levels, ensuring that the minimum wage remains stagnant. It is no coincidence that employers actively lobby against making social assistance sustainable. Many would prefer to work more hours if they were not trapped in precarious contracts designed to serve the interests of profit-focused employers. This same situation extends to informal caregivers who continue to fill the growing gaps within our healthcare system.
It might be comforting to imagine the world of the VVD, where discussions unfold among like-minded individuals, sampling bitterballen and sipping prosecco. However, this perspective is a stark contrast to the lived reality of dedicated workers across the nation—cleaners, caregivers, and pharmacy employees—whose challenges remain unseen. It overlooks the experiences of the sick, the partially incapacitated, young individuals with disabilities, and those released from the workforce.
Nor does this world reflect the experiences of the ‘newly enslaved’—the migrant laborers who contribute to our society but whose struggles the government conveniently chooses to overlook, as they do not align with the employer-driven agenda. Instead, we see a focus on human rights-infringing asylum measures that distract from the pressing issues at hand, all while tough rhetoric continues to circulate about benefit recipients, intentionally obscuring the reality that the government’s promises regarding social security lack substance.
Everyone is welcome to join us. A trade union stands for the rights and interests of all people.
Title: Unpacking the “Benefit Brouhaha”: An Interview with Labor Rights Advocate
Interviewer: Good day, and thank you for joining us. Today, we’re diving into the contentious remarks made by VVD faction leader Ms. Yesilgöz regarding benefit recipients and the labor market in the Netherlands. To shed light on this issue, we have with us [Guest Name], a prominent labor rights advocate from the FNV. Thank you for being here.
Guest: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we discuss these issues openly.
Interviewer: To start, Ms. Yesilgöz made some bold claims about benefits being too generous compared to wages. What are your thoughts on this perspective?
Guest: Ms. Yesilgöz’s comments suggest a misguided understanding of the realities facing many workers today. She insinuates that benefit recipients are somehow privileged, when in fact, the welfare state supports those struggling to make ends meet. In contrast, wages in the Netherlands have stagnated while the cost of living continues to rise, leading to increased poverty among workers.
Interviewer: She also mentioned that benefits create an imbalance in the labor market. What is your response to that?
Guest: That’s simply not accurate. The real issue is not that benefits are too high, but rather that we have an overabundance of precarious work due to neoliberal policies that prioritize flexibility and profits over decent employment. This flexibility often results in low-paying, temporary positions that leave workers vulnerable.
Interviewer: Ms. Yesilgöz claims that the minimum wage should not be raised because it would hurt employers. What do you think about the current minimum wage situation in the Netherlands?
Guest: The current minimum wage is definitely insufficient. The EU standard states that it should be at least 60% of the median wage, which translates to about 16 euros per hour in our country. It’s imperative that we work towards this target to ensure that all workers can live with dignity. The idea that raising wages would harm businesses is an outdated argument, particularly when studies show that fair wages lead to more satisfied, productive employees.
Interviewer: How do you see the issue of unpaid work or “quid pro quo” arrangements being justified in our current system?
Guest: That’s a troubling aspect of our labor policy. Forcing individuals to work without pay, especially under the guise of social obligation, is fundamentally exploitative. It undermines the value of their contributions and perpetuates the narrative that those on benefits are inherently lazy, which is simply not the case.
Interviewer: Ms. Yesilgöz also mentioned the concept of a postcode lottery regarding social assistance, implying inconsistency in support. Can you elaborate on that?
Guest: Absolutely. The variation in access to social assistance based on location creates massive inequalities. It means that two individuals living in different municipalities could receive very different levels of support, even if they have similar needs. This discriminatory practice is unacceptable and highlights the urgent need for a standardized system that guarantees basic assistance for everyone, regardless of where they live.
Interviewer: Lastly, what message would you like to send to viewers who may be undecided on these issues?
Guest: I would urge everyone to look beyond the rhetoric and consider the lived experiences of workers struggling to survive. It’s vital we advocate for a fair labor market, one that values every worker, whether they are employed or receiving benefits. Together, we can push for changes that create a more just society for everyone, not just the privileged few.
Interviewer: Thank you, [Guest Name], for sharing your insights with us today. It’s clear that these discussions are more important than ever as we navigate the complexities of labor and welfare in our society.
Guest: Thank you for the opportunity. Let’s keep the conversation going.
Sistency in how benefits are administered. What’s your take on that issue?
Guest: The postcode lottery is a significant concern. It highlights the inconsistencies in the welfare system, where support can vary widely based on where you live. This inequity creates additional hardships for individuals who are already vulnerable. Everyone deserves equal access to benefits, irrespective of their location. We must strive for a system that provides fair and adequate support to all, without leaving anyone behind based on arbitrary geographical distinctions.
Interviewer: In light of these challenges, what steps do you think should be taken to improve the welfare state and the labor market in the Netherlands?
Guest: First and foremost, we need to raise wages across the board, abolish the youth wage, and ensure that the minimum wage is a living wage—one that enables workers to support themselves and their families without falling into poverty. Additionally, our focus should be on strengthening the welfare state rather than undermining it. This involves enhancing social security measures, ensuring that all benefit recipients receive adequate support, and investing in programs that promote decent work rather than precarious employment.
Interviewer: As we approach the end of this conversation, what message would you like to share with our audience regarding solidarity and social justice?
Guest: It’s essential that we recognize our shared humanity and the interconnectedness of our struggles. Solidarity is paramount—whether you’re a cleaner, a caregiver, or a benefit recipient. We must unite to advocate for policies that promote dignity, fairness, and compassion in our society. Everyone deserves a voice and a chance to thrive, and we should work collectively to create a more just and equitable system for all.
Interviewer: Thank you, [Guest Name], for your insights on this vital issue. It has been a pleasure discussing these challenges and the paths forward for a more just labor market and welfare system in the Netherlands.
Guest: Thank you for having me. It’s been an important conversation, and I look forward to continued discussions on these critical issues.
