Government's proposes mandatory employment for benefit recipients with children

Download article in original language : NL9911172FNL.DOC

In September 1999, the Dutch government proposed obliging parents (mostly mothers) of small children receiving benefits to work. The proposal - part of the overall Work and Care Act - received heavy criticism, but it appears that a majority in the Lower House of parliament is prepared to vote in favour of a less stringent variation of the proposal. The FNV trade union confederation and the small and medium-sized business sector reject mandatory employment, which the VNO-NCW employer's association endorses.

At the end of September 1999, the government announced plans to oblige parents receiving social security benefits with children younger than five years old, to seek employment in order to retain benefits. The proposal affects 40,000 parents, practically all of whom are female. The partial employment obligation would translate to a part-time job for three days a week, or an equivalent period of training in preparation for re-entering the labour market. A complete employment or training obligation already applies to parents receiving benefits with children older than five years. In total, 114,000 single-parent families live at the "social minimum", 77% of whom receive benefits and the remaining 23% live solely on alimony payments.

The proposal forms part of the overall Work and Care Act (Wet Arbeid en Zorg), which also includes provisions on part-time employment (NL9910170N) and care leave (NL9902126N). The Lower House of parliament has amended the cabinet's initial decision on care leave provisions, changing the unpaid leave to a paid arrangement (NL9907154N). Specifically, employers and the government would pay an equal share of pay up to 70% of normal wages during the new 10-day annual entitlement to leave, to enable employees to take care of their ill children or other family members. Trade unions had included this proposal on the collective bargaining agenda for so long that it had already been written off as non-negotiable. Employer representatives have been opposed to it for years. Although some of them are now prepared to concede that they have lost the battle, they steadfastly believe that terms and conditions of employment should be left to the social partners, not the government.

Criticism

While mothers receiving benefits loudly expressed their discontent outside the Lower House, the political parties inside also appeared unhappy with the cabinet's proposed employment obligation. The liberal VVD party, which forms part of the coalition government, was the sole supporter of the plan to make employment or training mandatory for parents (essentially mothers), though conceding that the municipal agencies responsible for implementation may review individual cases and lift the requirement when deemed appropriate. While the VVD considered the proposal socially responsible, the other parties voiced serious doubts. The two left-wing parties GroenLinks and SP joined the Christian CDA party in supporting a blanket exemption until children reach the age of 12. The two other parties in the ruling coalition, the social democratic PvdA and social liberal D66, endorse a reduced employment or training obligation for parents of under-fives of a maximum of half the normal working week, if coupled with adequate childcare and other facilities, and want the financial situation of the women involved to improve. The two parties also want this arrangement to apply to mothers of children over five years of age, thus reducing the existing full-time employment obligation for this group to a part-time requirement. They also strongly reject the notion of "forced" labour, preferring the term "mildly compulsory".

The VNO-NCW employers' association shares the VVD's positive assessment, stating that the proposal addresses the issue of the "silent labour pool" and serves to improve the opportunities of the women in question. On the other side, representatives of the small and medium-sized business sector declared the entire plan ridiculous, stating that the target group is far too small to reduce significantly current shortages in the labour market. The FNV trade union confederation agreed that mandatory job-seeking would have little impact, and stated that the proposal smacked of benefit entitlement erosion. According to FNV, many female benefit recipients have been unemployed for a considerable period of time and, just like many other women, will end up in low-paying jobs with irregular hours if the plans go through. In addition, the union confederation asserts that certain facilities, such as childcare and additional educational and training opportunities, must accompany any new requirements. FNV threatened to form a united action group with women's organisations and other union confederations to thwart the plans.

A matter of principle

The watered-down version of the arrangement proposed by the PvdA and D66 seems agreeable to State Secretary of Social Affairs, Annelies Verstand, who said that reducing mandatory part-time employment to half the normal working week was acceptable, in that the issue is one of principle, not an exact number of hours. Ms Verstand, reflecting the school of thought that characterises the "second wave" of feminism, sees the issue as one of developing multiple aspects of people's lives, which will in turn positively influence child-rearing. She dismisses any relationship between the measure and current labour shortages (ie seeing women as a reserve labour pool), believing instead that the time is ripe for women to seize existing opportunities. The State Secretary wants to eliminate a lifelong cycle of subsistence on benefits, and to offer the prospect of an economically brighter life in order to contribute to these women achieving economic self-reliance. Finally, the proposal fits in with the cabinet's policy, though which employment and care are integrated in everyone's lives. In 1998, the new concept of an "employee with care responsibilities" was included in working time legislation with the aim that employers should take into account personal circumstances, namely care responsibilities, when setting their employees' working hours.

Commentary

The cabinet's proposal concerning parents who receive benefits appears to be in keeping with the current government coalition in which liberal and social-democratic principles must be reconciled. The common ground in the policy is the importance that both camps attach to participation in employment. The parties differ on the manner in which this should be achieved, however. The social-democratic PvdA party places far greater emphasis on the role of care in employees' lives. Together with D66, it submitted a proposal for care leave which had already circulated for some time in organisations such as the trade unions and associations of older people. The cabinet made this 10-day care leave period unpaid, but this was reversed in the Lower House, where the liberal VVD party stood alone in championing unpaid leave. Once again, the VVD, along with the VNO-NCW employers' association, is now the sole supporter of the original mandatory employment proposal, whereas the two other government parties call for better terms and a smaller-scale work requirement. Neither the representatives of the small and medium-sized business sector nor FNV are happy with the proposal. The trade union federation points to the limited labour market opportunities available to the women involved, a group predominantly educated only at a lower level, and believes that a part-time training programme would be more beneficial in a qualitative sense as well as the ultimate financial result. This applies even more so now that parents (mainly mothers) with older children will most likely be required to seek part-time employment. In this way, combining employment and childcare will become somewhat more concrete. (Marianne Grünell, HSI)