Labour market flexibility must not become a constraint - workers need not always be available.

In recent weeks, there have been accusations in the media of spreading misinformation about changes to the Employment Contracts Act. The accusations are serious but misleading.

No one wants to sow fear or claim that some workers do not need flexible working. It is about the way in which flexible working is offered, and there is even a media campaign to enforce it. Moreover, it is being foisted on the public by claiming that the changes to the Employment Contracts Act are good for workers. That is a lie.

Employers say that the changes to the Employment Contracts Act will affect only a small number of workers and that it is an improvement that will increase legal certainty for workers. However, a look at the content of the draft reveals a fundamental shift in the organisation of working time. The changes will give employers the right to enter into employment contracts that guarantee workers only 10 hours of work a week - the rest will depend on whether or not the employer has an activity to offer.
 

Unpaid on-call time for an employee

The argument that workers should have more guarantees under a contractual working time agreement than under an employment contract is true in form, but hollow in practice. If a contract gives the worker formal protection but no guarantee of a stable income, we cannot speak of real security. This is particularly the case where the worker has no possibility of doing additional work for another employer at the same time - because he or she has to remain 'on call', but with no guarantee that work will come.

The question of what happens to social protection for workers is particularly acute. If hours are scarce, the amount of social tax payable on the worker's wages will be reduced and this will have a direct impact on the amount of the worker's pension in the future. But also the sickness benefit payable immediately to the worker when he or she recovers, and the replacement income during the job search period. Officially known as unemployment benefit.
 

For the employee, flexibility ends at the moment of signing the timesheet.

A planned working time agreement increases flexibility and economic security for the entrepreneur alone. This flexibility does not apply to the employee. Once the schedule is signed, he or she must be ready to go to work - even if life brings the need to care for an elderly person or a child. In the case of a cumulative account, a working time schedule can be drawn up for a period of four months to a year. So where is the employee's freedom to work flexibly if the schedule is drawn up for, say, 12 months?

It stresses that the amendments to the Employment Contracts Act have been discussed with stakeholders. However, no equivalence can be drawn between interest groups and the social partners. In the labour market debate, the social partners are the employers' confederation and the trade union confederation - they should be the first to discuss the amendments to the Employment Contracts Act. Standing up for the rights of employers and employees, considering the impact of the changes on one or the other party, and ensuring that the amendment is balanced. What has actually happened?

The latest amendments to the draft Employment Contracts Act were made a few days before it was submitted to the government. The trade unions representing workers read them in the press. Yet we are talking about more than 600 000 workers whose daily lives are affected by these changes.

Trade unions are in favour of a flexible labour market - many workers need and expect it. But flexibility must be a two-way street. People cannot and must not be available to employers 24/7 for nothing. Unstable working arrangements must not become the new norm, enshrined in law.

The development of the labour market can only take place through a transparent and equal social dialogue. Today, trade unions do not see this. We call on the trade union confederation not to rush the adoption of the draft and to refer it back to the social partners for discussion.