Who is responsible when things go wrong? The common thread in the 2026 labor market policy.
The Jetten administration has only been in office for half a year, but a clear trend is already emerging from this summer’s flood of legislative proposals, policy changes, and court rulings. Behind the discussions about labor leasing, self-employed workers, and platform work lies the same question: who bears responsibility if an employment relationship turns out to be different than originally thought?
For years, parties were able to hide behind gray areas. A client hired someone, an intermediary facilitated the arrangement, and a self-employed person was self-employed. As long as no one raised the alarm, the system worked. But that leeway is rapidly shrinking. We see the same trend in legislation and case law: responsibilities are being assigned more explicitly, and the consequences of incorrect assumptions are increasingly falling on the party that bears the risk.
WTTA: Responsibility as a prerequisite
Under the Act on the Authorization of the Provision of Workers (Wtta), responsibility becomes something you must be able to demonstrate in advance. As of January 1, 2027, no one will be permitted to provide workers without authorization from the Dutch Temporary Labor Market Authority. This fundamentally changes the discussion. The focus is no longer on whether you can explain after the fact why you are not a temporary staffing agency. The question becomes whether you can demonstrate in advance that you are authorized to provide this service. This affects not only traditional staffing agencies; brokers, MSP service providers, and - often underestimated - consulting firms may also fall within the scope of the law, sometimes without being fully aware of it. The impact extends beyond mere supervision or enforcement. Clients will take an increasingly critical look at the parties with whom they collaborate. As soon as uncertainty arises regarding authorization or qualification, legal uncertainty becomes a commercial risk.
The legal presumption: protection you must claim yourself
Another shift is taking place for self-employed professionals. Starting January 1, 2027, self-employed individuals with an hourly rate below €38 will be able to invoke the legal presumption of employment. From that point on, the burden of proof will lie with the client, who must demonstrate that no employment contract exists. On paper, this represents a significant strengthening of workers’ position. In practice, however, there is a notable nuance: the initiative lies entirely with the self-employed individual. Without invoking the legal presumption, nothing changes. This is precisely where an interesting contradiction arises. While politicians and labor unions present the measure as protection, support among many self-employed individuals appears to be limited. The law grants additional rights, but not everyone perceives those rights as an improvement in their position. This shows that legal responsibility and perceived security are not always the same thing.
Temper: when the legal classification changes retroactively
And then there is the ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal regarding the Temper platform. The court ruled that a temporary employment contract exists between Temper and the workers on the platform. In doing so, the court reached a substantially different conclusion than the district court had previously reached. An appeal to the Supreme Court seems likely, meaning the final outcome is still pending. Nevertheless, this case is already highly significant. It demonstrates how vulnerable existing models can be when the legal classification changes. What happens if a platform presents itself for years as a marketplace for self-employed individuals, but a judge later concludes that it was, in fact, a temporary employment arrangement?
This inevitably raises the question of who is responsible for the consequences. The intermediary? The client? Or both? It is precisely this uncertainty that makes this ruling relevant to many more parties than just Temper.
Less room for interpretation
At first glance, the WTTA, the legal presumption, and the Temper ruling appear to be three separate cases. In reality, they tell the same story. Legislators and judges are becoming increasingly reluctant to accept that responsibilities remain implicit. Whereas employment relationships used to be assessed primarily after the fact, there is a growing need for clarity in advance. Organizations must be able to substantiate why they use a particular arrangement and under what legal classification they operate. That does not mean the rules are becoming simpler. On the contrary. The frameworks are becoming more precise, while practice often remains complex.
For independent professionals, this means that legal protection does not automatically lead to greater certainty. For agencies that supply professionals, it means that assumptions about their role are becoming increasingly untenable. And for clients, it is becoming more important to look not only at rates and availability, but also at the legal foundations of the collaboration.
What does this mean for you?
Anyone who waits until a law actually takes effect or until a judge issues a final ruling runs the risk of falling behind the curve.
The WTTA, the legal presumption of employment, and developments surrounding the Temper case show that the labor market is entering a new phase. The focus is no longer on the type of contract, but on whether all parties involved can explain, substantiate, and demonstrate their position. Because ultimately, the discussion increasingly revolves around the same question: If an assessment were to take place tomorrow, could you explain why your employment relationship is legally sound?