
Why so many Dutch people work part time - petethomas
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/05/economist-explains-12
======
furyg3
Hey, I know something about this! I moved from silicon valley to NL about 8
years ago.

First off there are two ways to spin this: 1) women are less emancipated in NL
because they participate less in the workplace or 2) women are more
emancipated because they are able to choose to participate less in the
workplace.

I first thought #1 was true, but I'm seeing a lot of new fathers taking
advantage of Dutch part-time rules by taking a day a week off to participate
in child care. So maybe instead of the measure of emancipation being women's
values aligning with traditionally 'male' ones, maybe it's that male values
are aligning with traditionally 'female' ones.

Subjectively I can also ay that the Dutch workplaces I've had the pleasure to
experience are both more healthy and more 'efficient', and my previous
experience has been exclusively in hard-working silicon valley. Plans are
important, meetings are avoided unless necessary (and have agendas!), and
there is a focus on getting stuff done so that people can leave at six and be
with their families. Overtime is a sign that something has gone terribly
wrong, and nobody bothers you while you're on your vacation. This culture
allows part-time work to be an option... that is, a 32/36/40-hour contract is
actually meaningful.

At my previous jobs in the US I wouldn't even think about reducing my hours...
a 32 vs 40 hour contract is pointless if you're expected to work 50-60 hours a
week, better to take as much money as you can.

~~~
acqq
Thanks. I'm from Europe, therefore really needing some explanations (to the
opposite direction of the title subject of explaining European logic to the
non-European readers):

> Overtime is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong

Why are there environments which don't think that the "overtime is a sign that
something has gone terribly wrong?" How come that workers don't try to stand
to their rights? Specifically:

> you're expected to work 50-60 hours a week

How come, if you sign the contract for e.g. 40 hours? The only thing workers
are selling are their work hours, why do they accept to waste 25-50% of that?

At least Scott Adams gets it:

[http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-12-19](http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-12-19)

~~~
furyg3
The American professional mindset is that you are hired for a role, and a good
employee does what it takes to do that role. There are different rules (in
California) for professionals who plan their own work and/or supervise others
versus those in a service role, but the details are pretty meaningless... the
effect is: if you're a professional you do what it takes to make the project
succeed and make a good impression.

Combine this with another American trait, optimism, and you end up with over-
ambitions projects that genuinely underestimate the effort and underestimate
the resources, meetings that last twice as long because the first half was
spent eating bagels and talking about something unrelated (oops!), and
problems where everyone sincerely believes "we'll be able to solve later", and
you end up with mad-dash, please delay your vacation, oh can you come in on
Saturday, overtime. I also forgot to mention that you get bonus points for
being the first one at work and that last one to leave, even if you're taking
an awful lot of reddit breaks.

To Europeans it seems insane, to Americans it's funny but normal. The inverse
also applies, it has taken me a long time to adjust to a detailed level of
planning based on FTEs, make project plans that include unforeseen absences,
and actually truly worry early on in the project.

~~~
mtbcoder
I'm not quite sure most Americans find it 'funny' but rather do these things
more so out of fear. Fear of job loss, fear of missed advancements, fear of
missing out, etc. This also seems to explain why Americans as a whole take so
little vacation time even when they are entitled to take time off [1].

[1] [http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-
workpla...](http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-
workplace/why-are-americans-so-afraid-take-vacation)

~~~
Cthulhu_
This is just it - worker protection in the Netherlands is much better than in
the US or UK; an employer can't just fire someone, for one. An employee cannot
work for more than X hours a week - and if it's requested to work overtime or
odd hours, the employer has to pay for it (up to 200% if working Sundays).

And if there weren't laws and worker inspections and whatnot in place already,
people would go on strike - and that usually has a major effect, like
nationally crippled transportation (of any sort) or rapid accumulation of
trash.

Which TBF makes me a bit depressed about the Americans. Have all the Walmart
employees unionize and go on strike - there's nothing the management can do,
not even enforce their 'you cannot unionize' contract thing, if everyone goes
against them.

Some people are afraid pushovers TBF. And the employers slowly turned them
into that, by making them poor.

~~~
derf_
_> there's nothing the management can do_

On the contrary. Walmart's policy to date has been to simply close the store:

[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-13.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-13.htm)

They got in trouble for that one, so now they at least pretend to have other
excuses:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-
over...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-
activism/)

------
roel_v
Missing the main reason: child care is extremely expensive, to the point where
a median full time salary would go _wholly_ to child care when one has two
children.

For example, I have two children in day care three days a week, and we pay
1200+ euros per month. My friends in Belgium (where I'm from) pay literally
1/10th of that. Those in France and Germany also pay much less than we do,
although I don't know by heart exactly how much.

The _reason_ child care is not subsidized (much) is the same as that mentioned
in the article though - conservative popular opinion on how parents should be
home with their children, and that having children in day care 5 days a week
is tantamount to neglect.

~~~
lmf4o
Thats why we decided that my wife stays at home. Its anyway terrible to send
kids < 3 years to child care. They can't even talk to complain.

~~~
rehtona
How is it terrible exactly? It's standard practice where I live. My niece went
to child care shortly after 1 year and she loves it. I'm sure she would be
immensely bored just being home with mommy all day, every day.

~~~
ptaipale
Leaving a 1-year-old is typically a very different thing from leaving a
3-year-old to day care. And, even at the same age, children are different from
each other.

My own kids are now all adults, but I remember how heart-breaking it was to
leave a two-year-old to a day-care place where she did not want to stay. She'd
cry all the way when going there, and stick to hug my legs "please don't go"
though she could barely speak. It wasn't good.

Later on, she and younger brother were perfectly happy in another day-care
place when they were a bit older.

Also, my daughter was all the time sick in her first day care place. She'd
pick every infection there ever was around and we had horrible days with day
care, horrible evenings queuing in the health center, and horrible nights
without sleep. The daughter just had weak resistance as a 18-month-old, but
was much stronger when she was 5 years.

My younger son on the other hand enjoyed day care tremendously from the very
start, but he only went there at age of 4.

I would say that

1) there is variance in children, as individuals (some of them are naturally
more dependent on their parents)

2) there is variance in day-care places (the first one we had was run by the
council, the staff was inexperienced and they compensated for their insecurity
by being rude; the other was a private one subsidised by the council, and the
staff was really nice -- others have reported things being the other way round
with very nice council-run places, so I conclude just that the human factor
has a big impact).

3) there is variance in parents

(These experiences from the Finnish system which provides very extensive and
affordable public service by North American standards).

~~~
aidos
I can echo that experience. We've been lucky in that our kids have generally
really enjoyed going to childcare.

There was one place that my daughter was never really happy to go to. It was
fine, and she was safe - she was just never happy there. We moved her to a new
place and she loved it from the moment she walked in (though she knew some of
the other kids from her first nursery).

I think sickness and childcare just go hand in hand. It flowed on to the rest
of the family too. I've been sick so many times in the last few years - though
I think we're through the worst of it now. Nothing like the happy embrace of a
snotty child to make you ill.

------
teekert
Dutch person here. The only friends I have that work full-time have partners
that are at home for the kids. I don't know any couple that both work full-
time. Couples that both have a career they want to keep go for 32 hours each
and the kids go to daycare for 3 days. I hardly know anyone working full-time
among friends my age (lower 30's), even without kids, they just like 3 day
weekends.

When I applied at ASML they asked me: What if it looks like you will not be
able to finish your work within the assigned time, what do you do?

I said: I would just work some more, if it doesn't happen very often, not a
problem.

WRONG. Go to your project leader tell him: "I have time for either this or
this, where should I put priority." We do not want overworked people.

ASML gave employees about 2 months salary as a bonus some time back, this is
on top of a customary 13th month in December.

~~~
Cthulhu_
ASML is one of the Netherlands' most successful and profitable companies
though, and I can imagine they have relatively few but high-skilled employees,
especially in the engineering department.

~~~
teekert
The large (healthcare) company I work for is the same (minus the bonus).

Maybe the little value that is put in hierarchy (my boss has my respect
because he is smart, never just because he is my boss). Displays of hierarchy
are very badly appreciated here. We appreciate professors that want to be
called by their first name. It balances things more perhaps.

~~~
mtrimpe
Can confirm. There's nothing special about the ASML case.

There are a few exceptions in Dutch IT but, unsurprisingly, they are mostly
staffed with internationals.

------
mvanvoorden
"The Dutch government has said that by next year 30% of executive board
positions should be held by women..."

I wish one day we can do away with this sort of 'reverse' sexism, and I think
that next year 100% of executive board positions should be held by capable
people, regardless of their sex.

~~~
omginternets
>I think that next year 100% of executive board positions should be held by
capable people, regardless of their sex

So, in theory, 50% of capable people should be women, no?

 _edit_ : If your point is that we shouldn't be positively discriminating to
artificially reach equidistribution of men and women in the workplace, then I
agree, but your line of argumentation is often used to imply that women are
less competent.

~~~
mvanvoorden
I don't think so, as more men tend to choose an education that paves an easier
path to acquiring a board position. This is not because women are less
capable, but because they somehow feel less attracted to this field of work.
This of course also has to do with our parents, media and other surroundings
teaching us about gender roles and such.

It's only since a few years that for example technical studies try to attract
more women, as these were before considered 'a man's thing'.

It's going to take a few generations for all of this to 'even out' and then we
might see 50/50, but it could also result in 70/30 or 30/70, if it turns out
that in a gender-neutral unbringing, one gender might be more capable of
leadership than another.

~~~
mc32
To me the answer is not gender neutral upbringing, but rather emphasizing that
everyone has the dame potential to achieve and make the tools available to
everyone.

Let's say instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics
handicaps, we wouldn't pretend there aren't handicaps, ache same time we would
not steer people but rather provide them all with the same opportunities and
not encourage or discourage because of a particular handicap. Let the people,
children, figure out what works and doesn't work for them, given their
abilities and handicaps.

The biggest problem I see is people steering or lowlighting certain paths
because of some preconceptions --a deaf person can't sing well, instead let
them prove they can't sing, or that they can sing, regardless of hearing.

~~~
toothbrush
_the dame potential_

That sounds rather sexist lol :p j/k

 _instead of gender differences, we had people with different physics [sic]
handicaps_

That might be considered rather insulting. Having a penis, vagina, or whatever
linear combination of the above isn't really comparable to being handicapped.

------
petjuh
> The Netherlands consistently ranks as one of the best places in the world to
> live.

> However, the Netherlands’ record for getting women into top management roles
> is dire.

Isn't happiness what's important?

We had a neighbor in our village who had chickens, who always kept the same
number of black-feathered and white-feathered chickens. I never saw how this
helped with anything. He did it for its own sake I guess. He just liked
symmetries and equalities, always keeping his things ordered and aligned, he
was kind of obsessive like that.

~~~
goodJobWalrus
Still, it's interesting that 80% of women and only 20% of men are most happy
working part time. Why such large discrepancy?

~~~
bojan
Because working part-time you can't really advance very far in your career,
and that is expected from men. From women, less so.

~~~
goodJobWalrus
But that is the point. Why are women happy to sacrifice their career, for the
sake of the family, and men not as much. So, is that really a choice for all
these women, or perhaps a necessity?

~~~
rwallace
I think the point is the reverse. Why are men happy to sacrifice family and
everything else that really matters in life for the sake of the rat race, and
women not as much? So, is that really a choice for all these men, or perhaps a
necessity? What can be done to make it less of a necessity?

(As I understand it, some Scandinavian countries have brought in the legal
right to paternity leave similar to maternity leave, which strikes me as a
good start.)

~~~
wobbleblob
What rat race? The work environment in the NL isn't stressful at all. I would
almost call it enjoyable. It's one of the few remarkably pleasant things about
living there.

------
tobyhinloopen
"Perhaps the Dutch are happy because they know that one works to live, and
that living to work is a perverse waste of life."

This is exactly my statement when I told my boss I wanted to work part-time.
Now, I only work around 20 up to 32 hours a week. Also, I feel I'm way more
productive this way: I only work when I "feel like working". Because of that,
I'm way more productive when I work.

I have dreams for my future. Doing a day-to-day office job isn't one of them.
In my "spare time", I'm converting my hobby and passion into my own company so
I can, hopefully, earn money with my hobby and stop working completely.

Yes, I'm from the Netherlands.

~~~
jedrek
I have a friend who does hiring in Berlin for a tech company. He's complained
about not being able to find full-time employees. Lots of talented people,
surprisingly few want to be locked in for 40-50h/week, especially when they
have 4 other quasi-work commitments (playing in a band, working behind a bar
once a week, etc) as well.

~~~
leap_ahead
That's because experienced software developers know they can only be
productive for 4-5 hours a day and any attempt to forcefully extend this time
results in lower quality work and hidden bugs. Then you get a senseless
situation on your hands - you first waste a few extra hours to make things bad
then you spend additional time to correct your mistakes. You might as well
just go home and enjoy extra personal time, to come back fresh and energized
the next day. In 20-25 hours per week you can actually accomplish a lot. A 40
hour week will wear you quickly. A 50 hour week can bring you one step closer
to a burn-out and possibly damage your health in a long run.

Additionally, there might me some cultural issue involved. A few years ago I
worked in Germany and the one thing I didn't like about the German workspace
is that companies didn't really want their workers to be productive and
efficient, they just wanted them to put in all of their official working hours
and complete all of the formalities involved, while also frowning upon any
activities outside work. That was one of the reasons why I eventually moved
out. I wanted to accomplish things and grow, the companies I interviewed at
wanted me to stay 9-5 and be satisfied with their routine. I grew to dislike
this attitude and eventually made other plans for myself.

------
mcv
It's worth noting that this article considers anything less than 36 hours per
week to be part time, but a lot of Dutch people don't really consider 32 hours
part time. It is very common for young dads to work 4 days a week, and people
without children often think 4 days is plenty for a work week.

For the record, I've worked 32 hour weeks for ages now (and I've only
encountered one potential employer who had a problem with that, though they
agreed my request was totally reasonable). My wife works 36 hours a week,
which is standard in government jobs (as well as in many other places).

~~~
johnward
I've often thought about trying to negotiate a 4 day work week in the US but
it wouldn't be worth it. Since my 40 hours turn into 50 or 60 I could see 32
hours turning into 45 easily.

------
mdemare
Another part of this mystery is that Dutch people don't really consider a
32-hour work week to be "part-time". Especially since in most sectors the
official full-time work week is only 36 hours. I think I'm the only one of my
friends working 40 hours.

------
collyw
The article paints this as pretty positive, as such Britain looks good coming
in 5th on the graph. In reality many of the jobs created over the last few
years in the UK have been low paid zero hours contracts, not because people
want the flexibility, but because employers want top pay as little as
possible.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Same in the Netherlands. Solution? Create a law that requires employers to
hire you on a contract after 3 years of solid work.

Now guess what happened :p

You get fired after 3 years, so they don't have to give you a contract. Then
they hire someone new with less skills, but at least for 3 years they don't
have to give a contract and can fire you whenever they need to and of course
pay you like a temporary external employee instead of a full-time on contract
employee.

~~~
cies
This has been reduced to 2 years.

------
makeitsuckless
The popularity of part time work for women may have been a fluke, an
accidental mix of choices, culture and circumstances that has lead to the
current situation. A situation that is certain downsides.

However, the big upside is still underway: it is becoming increasingly normal
for men to work part time. Already it's common for men to work no more than 32
hours, that's not even considered part-time anymore.

If this trend continuous, the Netherlands is shifting towards a much shorter
working week than most countries, without any major upheaval or further
government intervention. However much by accident rather than design, it does
seem to put the country one step ahead of most when dealing with an economic
reality in which full employment for everyone is never going to happen.

~~~
wobbleblob
There is just one downside to working part time when you're young that not
everyone seems to consider fully. The tax deductible amount you're able to
save for retirement is a percentage of your income. Money saved when you're
young accumulates more interest. Basically, the less you work now, the more
you will have to work later, when you're old.

Young people don't seem to realize that there already isn't much AOW (social
security) left for them. Unless you're 50+ now (the most powerful voting block
is usually exempt from cutbacks), you will not be able to retire at 67. The
retirement age is officially raised along with life expectancy. The 20 year
old of today will not be eligible for AOW until their early 70's.

Because not everyone is physically capable of continuing to work until 70+,
and employment opportunities for people over 60 are pretty much zero, you're
going to need savings to bridge that gap.

~~~
mvanvoorden
It sounds awful that people have to work all of their lives, so they have
built up enough social security and pension that they can spend all of this
when they're too old and weak to actually enjoy it.

I retired at 30, not willing to take part in this craziness anymore, to live
fully now and only work every now and then when I need money, although I'm
also working hard on a solution that eliminates the need for money at all (and
not only for myself, but for anyone willing to participate).

My motto about the future: If in my life I haven't made such an impact on at
least one person that nobody is willing to take care of me when I'm not
capable anymore myself, I have either done something wrong or society has
become something I'm not willing to live in anymore anyway.

~~~
wobbleblob
NL is too densely populated to live off the land, and the cost of living is
rather high, so I'm not sure how you're doing it. But as long as you're not on
welfare, don't have kids in school or use other tax payer funded facilities,
I'm totally fine with your choice. It just wouldn't be my choice.

What also helps is that I don't hate my job. Maybe you just chose a career
that didn't make you happy. Isn't there another kind of job that would make
you want to work more?

~~~
timwaagh
most jobs are not fun. if it was fun somebody would do it for free. other than
that welfare is indeed generous. the state subsidizes rent for those with less
money (this and the tax system makes full time employment almost a waste of
time). living is not that expensive when the typical lunch is a few slices of
bread. a lot of people don't even own a car.

------
iagooar
Reading some of the comments about child care makes me think that we have
perverted the way we raise our children.

Isn't it plain backwards to send a kid to child care and go to work to pay for
it? Unless you are earning an awful lot of money at your job, it doesn't feel
right. It just makes so much sense to me to have one of the parents stay at
home with the kids, spending most of this beautiful time together.

Heck, I want to have kids soon, but first I want to figure out how to earn
enough money to maintain my family being the only earner + not working more
than 30-32 hours a week. This could mean having a lot less money at the end of
month, but it's temporary until the little ones are a bit older.

~~~
olau
So you don't imagine you being the one home with your children, day in and day
out? Life with children is demanding. It's a bit more complex than what you
allude to. Not that I'd recommend not having children, I love mine and love
taking care of them, but a more realistic view is appropriate, e.g. try
googling "toddlers are assholes". :)

------
peter303
Major benefits like health and child care are tied to government rather than
employment. Therefore you don't have to play games with 2nd careers and
minimum hours. Probably a good idea for US to consider.

------
kornakiewicz
Unfortunately, in the rest of the world "part-time" is not considered as
something professional, but it's reserved for cheap labor force (shop
assistants, baby-sitters, call-center guys) or for students. Most of "serious"
companies won't even think about hiring a professional for 25h.

------
mvanvoorden
On a less-serious side note, this article reminds me a lot of this blog post:
[http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2012/03/20/not-
working/](http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2012/03/20/not-working/)

------
breakingcups
I'm Dutch and I work part time (32 hours), which was sort of by accident.
Since I've started, 5 other people in the company I work for (including the
two owners!) have started working 32 hours instead of 40, either to spend more
time with their kids or just for themselves. Overall, this makes scheduling
work a bit harder for my bosses but other than that there's been nothing but
positive results.

I'm male by the way.

~~~
czbond
This is amazing for me to hear. As an American who is tired of the brainwashed
"work at all expenses" cult like mantra here - we've been considering a move
to more sane places.

------
Cthulhu_
The chart / figures are a bit misleading though; it lists an age range of
15-64. People in the 15-25 age range will generally work part-time (if they
work) because they're still in school/college/university. Also, people above
55 (iirc) get 'free' days off (because they're old), I'm not sure if that
counts as part-time (since iirc they get paid full-time).f

------
dba7dba
Instead of companies hiring a full time engineer that works 50-60 hours
(causing him/her to burn out and quit), how about hiring 2 part timers working
30 hours, allowing more family time.

Paying salary for 1 full timer may seem a little lower than 2 part timers
initially. But with better family life, I would think you will get better
productivity and recover the investment by retaining workers better.

~~~
ptaipale
The bean-counters will throw in fixed costs per head. There are facility
costs, IT costs (computers probably can not be shared, nor some software
licenses), etc. Overheads from support functions (HR etc) are often allocated
per head. There are medical insurance etc costs per head.

So, bean-counting makes you prefer fewer heads, and some of that cost is not
just due to bean-counters, but very real.

------
junto
Anyone else notice that the United Kingdom is listed as "Britain" in that
graphic? I don't think Britain is a country.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Anyone else notice that the United Kingdom is listed as "Britain" in that
> graphic? I don't think Britain is a country.

"Britain" is, like "the United Kingdom", a common less-formal name [0] for the
nation-state whose full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (and is the source of the usual adjective form associated
with that nation-state, "British".)

Britain, of course, isn't a "country" as that term is used in the UK, of
course; England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are the countries of
the UK. But the use here isn't to identify a country in that sense, but a
sovereign state.

Better pedants, please.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as
the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in Europe."

------
timwaagh
well screw that i'm dutch and i don't get to work part time. would like to
though. the new rules are only there 'on paper'. they're not rules as
employers can ignore them 'if they have pressing concerns'.

