ANP
Labor MP Kathmann
NOS Nieuws•vandaag, 13:05
It is highly questionable whether there will be a legal obligation for employers to discuss accessibility outside working hours with their employees. The House of Representatives is debating an initiative law from the PvdA that regulates this obligation, but many parties are critical of it.
The background to the proposal is that everyone must be sure of undisturbed free time, but that employees regularly feel that they must always be available and that they must, for example, answer messages outside working hours. “This pressure can lead to stress and even to burnout complaints,” says the explanatory note to the private law.
Differ by industry and by employee
According to the proposal, employers and employees must discuss accessibility together. It must be demonstrable that the conversation actually took place, for example through a written report. The PvdA emphasizes that the discussions can differ per sector and size of the company, and also per position and employee. If it appears from the interview that accessibility outside working hours is experienced as burdensome, measures must be taken.
A similar law already exists in France, for example. The PvdA points to British research which shows that since the introduction of mobile phones and tablets, an average employee works every day for about an hour and a quarter on his own time.
Administrative expenses
In any case, D66 and GroenLinks support the plan. But VVD and PVV, among others, are against it. According to the largest government party, it has not been demonstrated that there is a connection between accessibility and burnouts. In addition, the VVD wants to limit the administrative burden for employers. The PVV believes that an employee already has enough opportunities to report findings about work pressure and accessibility during working hours to the employer.
CDA and Volt also have many critical questions. The CDA considers a discussion between employer and employee on this subject useful, but the party points out that agreements have already been made on this in various collective labor agreements and European rules are also being drafted. That is why the CDA questions the timing.
Earlier, the Council of State was also critical. The Board believes that the initiators do not sufficiently demonstrate that the legal prescription of a meeting is necessary. The proposal was submitted in 2020 by PvdA MP Van Dijk. After he had left the Chamber, the defense was taken over by his party colleague Kathmann.
