A day after the complete disappearance of NSC during the House of Representatives elections, party leader Eddy van Hijum was faced with an unpleasant surprise. The plan he introduced at the beginning of this year as Minister of Social Affairs and Employment launched with the intention of combating the exploitation of migrant workers, was dismissed last Thursday by his successor, outgoing minister Mariëlle Paul (VVD). swept.
This means that employers may continue to deduct a quarter of their minimum wage from migrant workers for housing costs after January 1, 2026. According to Van Hijum’s earlier proposal, this arrangement “can promote a revenue model in which migrant workers are exploited.”
Van Hijum did not know what he read. “I just didn’t fall off my chair,” he says by telephone NRC about the withdrawal of the plans by his successor. “The timing of this surprises me enormously. We talked about labor migration for weeks during the election campaign, and one day after the elections this letter arrived in the mail. Very remarkable.”
On the social networking site Linkedin, the former minister and deputy prime minister went one step further: “The employment lobby @work”, wrote he responded, suggesting that his successor was influenced by the employment agencies that employ and house migrant workers in the Netherlands.
“The minister has of course had discussions with various parties, including us,” says the spokesperson for the ABU, the largest interest group in the temporary employment sector, when asked on the telephone.
In her public agenda can be seen that Minister Paul had a conversation with representatives of the ABU on October 1. The ministry confirms that the bill was discussed. On the same day, Paul also spoke about the subject with SER chairman Kim Putters, trade unions FNV and CNV and support organization for migrant workers FairWork, her ministry confirmed.
From a reconstruction of decision-making by NRC shows that outgoing minister Paul was already convinced on September 23 – eighteen days after she took office and more than a month before the elections – that Van Hijum’s bill would be better off. Initially, she postponed decision-making, ignoring the advice of her officials to inform the House of Representatives about this. A day after the elections, a letter to Parliament stated that the outgoing rump cabinet of VVD and BBB is completely reversing the plans.
Revenue model
There have been major concerns about the position of migrant workers in the Netherlands for years. Five years ago, a committee led by former SP leader Emile Roemer made a series of proposals to combat the exploitation of migrant workers, including demands for better housing. Yet many migrant workers in the Netherlands still live in small, moldy or unsafe homes. Last February, Minister Van Hijum concluded that there were “abuses” in the scheme that made it possible to withhold income for housing. Employers who offer migrant workers housing themselves – usually employment agencies – may withhold up to a quarter of the net minimum wage for this.
Migrant workers are “relieved to a certain extent” by this scheme, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment wrote in February. . But according to SZW, the scheme was “also used as an earning opportunity” by employment agencies, by withholding the maximum amount from wages, “while the quality of the housing sometimes does not justify this.” Industry experts estimate that about half of the approximately one million migrant workers in the Netherlands rent housing from their own employer – there are no hard figures.
The government proposed to phase out the scheme from January 2026, so that by 2030 it would be completely prohibited to pay migrants below the minimum wage in exchange for housing. According to SZW, migrant workers would also become less dependent on their employer, because they do not immediately lose their living space when they lose their job.
The temporary employment sector immediately turned against the plans. The sector felt that these would actually make it more difficult to prevent poor living conditions for migrant workers. “If you are no longer allowed to withhold wages, an employee must pay rent himself. The money is then still collected, but it is no longer visible on the pay slip how much rent is paid,” says deputy director Cor de Koeijer of the NBBU trade association.
“Withholding wages actually protects temporary workers,” says CEO Raymond Puts of Otto Workforce, the largest employment agency for migrant workers in Europe. “It is transparent and verifiable. We are also in favor of separating living and working. This way you prevent people from falling into malicious hands. We see that as a desired outcome.”
During an earlier one exploration the ministry also said that the CNV scheme has advantages: if migrant workers have to look for a rental home themselves, they are “at the mercy of the (difficult) Dutch housing market, including rogue landlords.”
NBBU director De Koeijer: “We also want all migrant workers to be able to find their own housing. But in the current housing market that is simply not feasible. Then the current arrangement is the best way to offer housing and maintain its quality.”
During a internet consultation In June, when the parties involved were able to respond to Van Hijum’s bill, employers’ organizations VNO-NCW, MKB-Nederland and LTO also responded negatively to the cabinet plan. The CNV trade union also indicated that it doubted whether a ban on withholding wages would solve the abuses surrounding housing for migrant workers. Largest trade union FNV
Ready for treatment
The provisional bill was ready on September 18. But the plan could count on a new opponent, it appears official notes: VVD member Mariëlle Paul, who served as outgoing Minister of Social Affairs and Employment after the departure of Van Hijum and NSC from the cabinet on September 5.
“Disadvantages outweigh advantages. Don’t do it!!,” Paul wrote by hand on a note on September 23. She decided to wait before submitting the bill to the Council of Ministers, which would delay the plan by at least six months. “It is necessary for the House of Representatives and social partners [..] about the delay,” its officials wrote. That did not happen.
When asked by her officials whether Paul wanted to discuss the bill in one of the sub-councils of the Council of Ministers at the end of October, the minister wrote: “No!”
According to the ministry, the fact that the minister was convinced shortly after taking office that her predecessor’s plan had to be scrapped had nothing to do with lobbying. She came to that conclusion after reading the decision memorandum of September 23, which “clearly shows that there are also four major disadvantages to phasing out the scheme.”
For example, a ban on withholding wages could lead to the government losing control over the housing of migrant workers and employment agencies could offer less housing – resulting in a greater housing shortage.
Paul had not yet spoken to stakeholders from the sector at that time. That happened on October 1, “to hear as wide a voice as possible about what is going on.” After this, according to her spokesperson, Paul concluded “that if you really want to protect migrant workers, you should not take this measure now.” According to the spokesperson, it took time to process this in a letter to Parliament; it was finished on October 29 (election day).
“Employers have a responsibility to take good care of their employees and also to arrange housing properly. That is why employers may only use this scheme if they meet certain quality requirements. You lose that supervision when the scheme is stopped,” the spokesperson writes in response to questions from NRC. According to the ministry, the fact that the CNV trade union shared this opinion was a “strong factor”.
At the FNV trade union, where people actually supported Van Hijum’s plan, anger prevails about Minister Paul’s action. “The broadcasting lobby has clearly been busy here,” says Jaqcie van Stigt of the main board of FNV. The withholding of a quarter of the salary by employment agencies is an “enormously lucrative revenue model,” she says. “It is easy to cash in. There must be housing in return, but it is often poor: in the worst case, just a dirty mattress. There is no authority that monitors the quality of housing. It is a lawless situation that can continue to exist.”
What does VVD minister Paul think of her predecessor Van Hijum’s insinuation that she would have listened to the business lobby? “We absolutely do not agree with that and it is not true,” her spokesperson said. “The exploration and decision note show that there are clearly two sides to the scheme. If you want to protect migrant workers, you should not phase out this measure now.”
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 articles give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.