ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

For Professor Erik Stam, it was a tough job, outside the university, but linked to his research: he was one of the ten experts on the Borstlap Committee. This committee advised the cabinet on a radical reform of the labor market. How does he look back on it and what does he expect from its impacts? 

It is undoubtedly on the "to do" pile of the new cabinet, the report of the Borstlap Committee: very critical, well-founded recommendations for a fairer, better functioning regulation of work in the Netherlands. Erik Stam, professor of strategy, organization and entrepreneurship at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� and also affiliated with the Future of Work hub there, was one of the ten experts who wrote it, based on research. And although shortly afterwards the corona crisis and the fall of the Cabinet thundered over society, the advice does have an impact. Like recently, in a large ‘’ between unions and employers on flex work and freelancers, issued by the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands, De Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER).

...there is a need for a new line, a new direction, because the current policy is not sustainable in the long term.

What do you think of that polderakkoord of the SER?

"It is largely based on our final report ''. In particular, providing more security for workers and responding to a more agile economy. That makes me feel good, of course. But there are also things in it, which we actually strongly advise against and argue being undesirable and unfeasible. That does surprise me. For example, the hour criterion for freelancers or a lower limit for hourly rates. That is precisely what is inherent in entrepreneurship: that the number of hours or the amounts you charge can vary per job, and that you take the freedom to carry out a project at a time and intensity of your own choosing. It is now up to the politicians to do something with all the advice. Our report recommends a significant trend break with previous labor market policies and includes radical changes. That's necessary, there is a need for a new line, a new direction, because the current policy is not sustainable in the long term."

"I expect 'The Hague' to move forward with our report."

Of which advices from your report, do you hope the new cabinet will follow?

"In particular, a better trade-off between employees and employers. The government needs to remove barriers, which now stop companies from employing people. But in return, employees must also be allowed to take a little more risk. If the company is doing badly, it should not have the obligation to always keep people 100% employed. Suppose you have a small company, with ten employees. You should be able to choose in case of economic setbacks: are we all going to work and earn 10% less temporarily? So that nobody has to be fired? Or do we choose, in consultation with that person, to fire someone? From a legal point of view, a lot is established already nowadays. There should be more autonomy for entrepreneurs and employees to organize work, to make sustainable employment relationships easier. In addition, we believe that employment, particularly for young innovative companies, should be made attractive. And more must be done to turn employees into organizational members: innovating together to realize the organization's broadly shared goal."

Just after your advice, the corona pandemic broke out, which was very drastic for all working people. Is this the right time for labor market reforms?

"Yes, I think so: the crisis has shaken things up and shown where the vulnerabilities in the system lie. Who is and who is not protected by social security? What can and do we want to do about it? In addition, the massive shift to home working has also shown that all sorts of deep-rooted habits about work can change. Suddenly there is a lot of autonomy for employees, without too much loss of quality. Employment are fortunately also still at a high level. There are even more vacancies than unemployed people. The pandemic has not affected our recommendations for the Dutch labor market. They remain valid; they were in any case intended for the long term. Nevertheless, I am pleased that we were able to finish the job before the crisis broke out. From a purely practical point of view, we were able to conduct our research and the countless discussions with groups in society "undisturbed". In times of crisis, that would have been more difficult."

...if you are asked as a scientist to make a valuable contribution in tackling major societal challenges, you can hardly say no.

How did you actually experience this job yourself?

"As quite intensive. Every four weeks we met on a Friday afternoon and evening. I estimate that I myself spent one day a week on it, for over a year. That's partly doing research, but also a lot of conversations with groups in society, with young people for example, with entrepreneurs, aiming to get as many insights and knowledge from the economy and society as possible."

"It was also a massive opportunity to be asked for this, I was honored! You can think along at the highest level. I found the chairmanship of Hans Borstlap and the contacts with my fellow committee members very pleasant and valuable. Besides, noblesse oblige: if you are asked as a scientist to make a valuable contribution in tackling major societal challenges, you can hardly say no."

How did you combine working for this committee with your other academic work?

"It has undoubtedly cost me a few publications, but it was more than worth it to me. It has also given me a lot professionally: useful contacts, a lot of energy, challenging questions. I learned a lot about my own practice of science, economics, and that of others, especially law. I learned both to look at the whole picture and to focus on details. I have since become more aware than ever that "the devil is in the detail" when it comes to policy practice. In short, I have gained all kinds of insights that cannot be translated one-to-one into scientific output, but which have made me a better researcher. The work for this committee par excellence involves translating scientific insights into practice, but also vice-versa."

Do you still speak to each other?

"Yes, sometimes one on one, soon also once with the whole committee. I was also very pleased that outgoing Minister Koolmees personally expressed his appreciation for our work, even though since then he has been particularly busy dealing with the corona crisis. I expect 'The Hague' to move forward with our report."