The Netherlands cannot handle any more labor migrants
In general, the Inspectorate advocates ‘stabilisation’ of the population size and a fundamental reorientation on the phenomenon of ‘labour’ in the Netherlands. This is what Inspector General Rits de Boer writes in the annual report of the Labor Inspectorate that was sent to the House of Representatives on Friday.
The report reads like a cry for help about the situation on the Dutch labor market. De Boer speaks of ‘staggering’ situations for migrant workers. ‘People who expect tasks get a text message from them to know that they are not working the next day. Babylonian construction sites with all the associated risks of miscommunication. Deadly or serious consequences, high rotation of anonymous broadcasts when working with hazardous substances, were promised 40 hours, but were able to make 20 hours a week. Work 40 hours and get paid for 20 hours. Intimidation by subcontractors. Unbalanced power relations with consequences and sexually transgressive behaviour.’
The common area plays a major role. Many migrant workers are at the mercy of the gods, according to the Inspectorate. ‘Employers who drop employees off at homeless shelters. People who are immediately on the street after phase A1 of the temporary employment contract: no work, no home. Overcrowding in biological residential areas such as recreation parks. People who receive ‘fines’ by the landlord/employer for the obligation to damage the living space that the employer rents out to them. (…) Tenants who live in a small and dirty place due to reconversion, without any privacy. Construction workers who work, cook, eat and sleep on the construction site.’
Fundamental rethink
Since those scenes have not appeared new in the series of reports on – de Boer states that it can be solved through stricter agreements with employers. From the perspective of the labor inspectorate, it makes sense if we as the Netherlands, and preferably also in an EU context, reflect on what sustainable labor and a sustainable labor market entail.’
As far as he is concerned, the conclusion is that the Netherlands has reached the limits of growth and that the aim should no longer be more labor migration. ‘The options regarding labor migration are severely limited. In the short term, the housing meets the standards, a hard security factor. Otherwise, the choice for more migration results in submersion in a miserable living situation. And in the long run, the choices that Dutch society has (housing market, inequality, CO₂, etc.) will only increase if the population – and therefore the size of the economy – increases.’
In his speech, De Boer refers to the Scientific Council for Government Policy, which in 2018 led to a reconsideration of the non-population size. With the current migration balance of plus 50 thousand annually, the Netherlands will have almost 20 million people in 2060. The government and the House will think a lot about what this will mean for the housing market, the labor market, education and health care in the long run. ‘The consciousness of migrants in a society grows to the extent that their arrival is a choice and not the outcome of a loss of control’, said Professor Paul Scheffer, the author of the WRR paper.
That message has partly landed in the coalition agreement of the current cabinet. This alludes to a ‘policy guideline’ for migration, after the German example. But the forming parties have not yet ventured to a concrete number. The Advisory Committee for Immigration Affairs (ACVZ) will first advise on this. In the meantime, the government is to prevent abuses by ‘combating the exploitation of employees, preventing poor competition and crowding out on the labor market’.
easy way
the government continues to see labor migration as a solution to the rapidly increasing shortages in many sectors on the labor market. The Labor Inspectorate believes that the cabinet is opting for an easy route. ‘In the event of a scarcity on the labor market, the adjustment must take place more through working time, in the sense of larger part-time jobs and through the activation of untapped potential.’ In general, the government would aim to increase labor productivity ‘by focusing more on people’.
That last overview is one of the most important ‘fallacies’ that De Boer sees in the debate on labor migration. ‘A lot of people hear and read ‘they do work that the Dutch don’t want to do’. This argument is usually used as a justification. But that’s a reversal. If the Dutch do not want to do certain work, what does it say about how we view the people who do want to do it? Also right or wrong? If the Dutch don’t want to because it’s dirty, heavy, unhealthy or unsafe, shouldn’t the question be whether work belongs in the Netherlands? And it raises the question of the Dutch categorically not wanting it, or just not under the conditions offered.’