Flexibility also needs certainty about time
Flexible work can suit peaks in demand, cover for absence and personal preferences. The question is who carries the uncertainty when the work is structural but the contract offers little security. This opinion argues that availability and income should be proportionate. An employer requiring availability at many times must explain what work and pay the employee can actually rely on.
This is an editorial opinion piece. The conclusion is a reasoned position and not personal legal advice.
Availability has value before a shift begins
An on-call worker may keep a day free, arrange childcare or decline another assignment. If the shift then disappears, paying only hours actually worked does not fully describe the lost flexibility. Statutory on-call rules already recognise that late changes can have consequences. Our editorial starting point also concerns everyday practice: an employer should not treat the entire week as an available reserve when only a few hours are guaranteed. A clear agreement on availability windows helps both parties plan and makes the flexibility actually required visible.
Structural work deserves a structural foundation
Working roughly the same number of hours every month is different from a one-off peak. That is precisely why the presumption of working hours and the hours offer after twelve months are relevant instruments under current rules. Employees should be able to find the required hours records easily. We believe an organisation should initiate discussion of a realistic scope of work itself, rather than waiting exclusively for someone to make a legal request. This is an organisational recommendation: the exact statutory entitlement still depends on contract, period, collective agreement and whether the work pattern is representative.
A schedule also allocates private time
Contract quality is often judged by the minimum pay amount, while its impact on study, care or a second job remains out of view. A small minimum with a wide range of possible deployment can block much of someone’s diary. For a range of hours, therefore, ask not only about the maximum but also about days, time windows and notice. Planning that is flexible only for the employer transfers the organisation of uncertainty to the employee. A balanced arrangement also identifies which boundaries the employee can reasonably set.
New legislation needs an honest timeline
The More Security for Flexible Workers Act was adopted in July 2026. For the contract-security changes discussed here, the Dutch government names 1 January 2028; one component on agency-worker conditions starts earlier. This distinction matters. Employees must not be told that future protection already resolves every problem. Employers likewise cannot assume there are no limits before commencement. Current rules on calls, pay and working hours remain relevant. Our position is that anticipating reform with clear agreements can be sensible, provided nobody presents future legislation as already applicable.
Records must be usable by employees too
Schedules change digitally, and the original call sometimes disappears. An employee must then prove afterwards what the employer changed. We argue for a system in which the history of calls, acceptance and cancellations is available to both parties. The payslip should also show how guaranteed hours, actual work and compensation due were processed. This is a practical organisational proposal. Its purpose is not to turn every disagreement into litigation, but to prevent ordinary checking from becoming impossible because only the latest version of a schedule remains visible.
Security can also make flexibility possible
An identifiable basic income may help an employee remain available for extra work, because fixed expenses do not have to be recalculated every week. This is editorial reasoning, not a promise that every organisation immediately becomes more efficient. Clear boundaries can nevertheless make discussions more businesslike: which peak is foreseeable, what extra availability is reasonable and what compensation belongs with it? Flexibility then becomes an agreed allocation of possibilities and risks. An unclear contract mainly conceals that allocation until there is either too little work or too few staff.
Counterargument: businesses cannot handle peaks without broad flexibility
Peaks and cover for absence are real needs. Employees may also actively prefer not to have a fixed schedule. We therefore are not arguing for the end of all variation. We ask for a distinction between temporary fluctuations and structural work, and between voluntary additional work and imposed availability. A minimum, clear boundaries and identifiable arrangements can leave room for exceptions. Special sector and collective-agreement rules deserve attention. The organisational need for flexibility becomes fully convincing only when it also explains why the chosen uncertainty for the employee is necessary and proportionate.
Map three and twelve months of work, preserve schedule changes and ask what hours guarantee fits the pattern. Employers can actively organise that discussion and make their records accessible. Our editorial standard is that flexibility should be mutually understandable: the employee knows what is required, what income accompanies it and when a boundary really is a boundary.
Sources and editorial notes
These sources support the factual context. The position, assessment and conclusion are those of our editorial team.
Sources current as of:
- Publisher: RijksoverheidDutch government: current rules on successive temporary contractsrijksoverheid.nlhttps://www.rijksoverheid.nl/themas/werk/hervormingen-arbeidsmarkt/passende-contractvorm/vraag-en-antwoord/arbeidsovereenkomst-en-cao/wanneer-verandert-mijn-tijdelijke-arbeidscontract-in-een-vast-contract
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.
General information. Not a substitute for personal legal advice. This language edition contains draft translations based on official Dutch sources. Independent final legal review and native-language editing have not yet been recorded.