Perhaps it is due to his “difficult character” that union leader Hans Spekman is not yet satisfied, he says. Less than two weeks ago, he had taken office as chairman of the largest trade union in the Netherlands, FNV, and had all proposed cuts to social security taken off the table. But no, he doesn’t think it’s enough yet. “I am not going to applaud the cabinet for reversing a mistake it made itself.”
The House of Representatives will debate on Thursday about the talks between the cabinet and trade unions, which now appear to be completely at a standstill. Despite the cancellation of the proposed cuts, the unions walked away from the Catshuis consultation with the cabinet for a second time last week. “The ghost of the VVD haunts these conversations,” says Spekman.
What do you mean by that?
“The VVD practices pure power politics,” says Spekman. According to him, the government’s commitments are not good enough as long as VVD members emphasize to the outside world, for example in television programs, that money must be added to the Social Affairs budget in any case.
“You see that more often with the VVD,” says Spekman. “Then it is said that something is necessary for the sustainability of public finances. But if you point out other options than looking in the Social Affairs budget, for example with the mortgage interest deduction, then suddenly different rules apply.”
The minority cabinet agreed in the coalition agreement to cut billions in health care and social security to finance increasing defense expenditure. To this end, the government wanted to reach a social agreement with employers and trade unions on reforms to the labor market and social security. For the time being, the unions see little point in this. In fact, the unions have now announced “actions throughout the Netherlands”.
To prevent this, Minister Hans Vijlbrief (Social Affairs, D66) wrote a letter to the unions in which he emphasized that “all options are on the table” and that he wanted to have an “open discussion”. In the letter he dismissed the proposed accelerated increase in the state pension age. He would also no longer continue the cuts to the disability scheme (WIA) and the Unemployment Act (WW) “in the proposed form”. This put the planned cuts of 6.5 billion euros in social security at risk again.
It is pretended that there is no alternative. But nothing is asked of the wealthy. Nothing is asked of shareholders
Prime Minister Rob Jetten also did his best to regain favor with the unions. During a ‘clarification meeting’ about the letter, Jetten allegedly promised, according to Spekman, that the 2.7 billion euros associated with the AOW plans did not have to be found in the Social Affairs budget after all. According to Spekman, it remained unclear whether the remaining cuts should be absorbed within that budget.
But Eelco Heinen (Finance, VVD) said something else a day after the clarification meeting in the Catshuis: seeking money from the social affairs budget is, according to him, “a fairly healthy basic attitude”.
Much to Spekman’s dismay. “The interim agreement between D66 and CDA still included measures for wealthy people and shareholders, but these have disappeared under pressure from the VVD. It is pretended that there is no alternative. But nothing is asked of wealthy people. Nothing is asked of shareholders. The VVD pretends that these cuts are inevitable, while ultimately they are political choices.”
Aren’t strikes also a form of power politics?
“Certainly. But that is the best answer to the VVD. We don’t have to do anything as a trade union. We are not obliged to talk about cuts in social security with a knife to our throat. Moreover, they themselves have opted for a minority cabinet. If that leads to political unrest, it is not the trade unions’ fault. The movement must come from the cabinet.”
Spekman points out that Brussels offers additional borrowing space for defense expenditure. That option was also included in the interim agreement between D66 and CDA during the formation, but disappeared under pressure from the VVD in the final coalition agreement. “We are now allocating an extra 17 billion for defense. That is also a choice that was made quite easily. And without the Netherlands expanding Europe’s budget space. We keep defense expenditure within the fences, while many other European countries have put it outside the fences.”
In the polder everyone has to give and take, right?
“We are prepared to be part of the polder. And to find a solution to problems that we all see together. But then you start with a level playing field. And not with a mega cutback.”
What is going wrong between you and the cabinet? Do you think differently about the numbers? Or do you look at people differently?
“We differ on both matters. On the problem analysis and on the image of humanity. The government says that we broadly agree on the problems. I do not share that. In fact, we only agree on one thing: that too many people end up in the WIA, for example due to a lack of preventive measures, and that the system is stuck due to the complicated rules and the shortage of medical examiners. But to be honest, with the WW I hardly see a shared problem analysis. That was mainly a cost-cutting task. an amount was worked out and arguments were then sought. We also differ in opinion about the sustainability of the AOW.”
On the one hand, the government wants to raise money for defense. On the other hand, it also sees reforms as necessary to keep social security affordable in the future, especially because they expect that the aging population will also cause significantly higher costs. The coalition is not alone in this. In the run-up to the House of Representatives elections, numerous reports and advice were published warning that because the Netherlands is aging, healthcare and social security costs are increasing.
The unions do not agree with this. According to them own analysis social security will remain affordable in the future, partly because economic productivity has increased. According to them, there are also “plenty of other ways” to pay for rising defense costs and relieve social security at the same time.
“Behind the choice to cut back on social security, there is also an image of humanity that I cannot agree with,” says Spekman. “I saw that reflected in Hans Vijlbrief’s dissertation, which I started reading when I knew I would become FNV chairman. I had called it a thesis in an interview with NRC. He found that slightly insulting, because it was a dissertation. But in terms of economic theory, it really does not transcend a thesis for me.
“In it you read the old liberal philosophy that the way to get people moving is to stimulate them. So shorten things. Because then they will try harder. Then they will be motivated to go to work. That is the image of humanity that is behind it.”
As a trade union leader, you naturally disagree with this?
“Most people I speak to really want to work. They are not lazy, but afraid of losing their job or becoming ill. I especially see how much sadness it causes people when they can no longer work. You see this in people who become disabled, but also in my wife when she could no longer be in class due to lung cancer. The loss of work and the feeling of being socially useful is often hard enough. The government seems to forget that.”