Labour market shortages as a topic in coalition formation

Although it was not a major topic during the election campaign, the continuing shortage on the labour market should certainly be an important theme for the coalition talks. After all, the parties are now (hopefully) going to make all kinds of wonderful plans for building more houses and investing in more defence equipment, expanding the electricity grid and improving the functioning of the government. The fact that there must be sufficient money for this is a perennial problem. And the Netherlands has now also become accustomed to the idea that all these plans must also take into account nitrogen emissions and the impact on nature. But we are not yet accustomed to the fact that, increasingly often, plans cannot be implemented due to a lack of people. Whether it concerns schools that cannot find teachers and therefore regularly have to send classes home, hospitals that have beds and equipment to treat patients but have to close a ward or operate at half capacity due to a lack of staff, or railways that have no train dispatchers, meaning that trains cannot run on certain routes for an entire morning, it is increasingly not money or nitrogen, but a shortage of people that is causing work to come to a standstill.

What can politicians do about this? Firstly, they should always check that no plans are being made that you know in advance you will not be able to find the people to carry them out (for example, if you want to make childcare free, which will only increase the demand for childcare workers, when there are already shortages). Secondly, do not make promises that you know you cannot keep because you do not have the people to do so (for example, when it comes to compensating the victims of the benefits scandal) – this leads to further discontent and erodes the already low level of trust that large groups of citizens have in the government. Thirdly, you should take a close look at whether there are people among those who are currently on the sidelines (pensioners, people with reduced working capacity, people who are unable to find work due to discrimination, etc.) who could still contribute to the labour market. Perhaps not full-time and perhaps with support, but if you ask nicely and give people a helping hand, there is often more possible than meets the eye and than the existing bureaucratic rules would suggest. Sometimes unconventional solutions help, as we see with the large number of Ukrainian refugees in work.

In addition to these things that can be addressed in the short term, the new cabinet – for example, together with the SER – should also draw up a plan for the labour market of the future. Where do we want to use AI in particular, and what should definitely remain human work? How can we organise future education in such a way that people find it easier to embrace a new profession later in life if there is more demand for it? Should we provide broader and less specialised training and/or should we steer young people's educational choices more, and if so, how? What has been missing so far in this triangle of labour market, investment in technology and education is direction. Without direction, it is the choices of individual market players (citizens and businesses) that determine what the future will look like. This may be attractive from their own perspective, but it does not automatically serve the public interest. And (most of) the parties forming the new government have repeatedly emphasised in recent months that this should be the focus of the new term of office. That discussion about the future of the labour market should begin at the formation table.