A cheap standby workforce can move demand risk to the worker who can least carry it.
A worker sits in shared accommodation with a phone close at hand. No shift has been confirmed, but the agency may call. Rent, food and transport still cost money. The day cannot be used freely because work may begin at short notice. Yet no wage arrives for the waiting.
In October, the Dutch Labour Inspectorate reported agency workers waiting for hours, days or even weeks without pay while expected to remain immediately available. Some wait where they live. Others report to a workplace before any work exists. The Inspectorate found this pattern particularly where labour migrants receive work, housing and transport through the same commercial chain.
The legal position depends on the contract, call arrangement, cancellations, working pattern and applicable collective agreement. The business issue is simpler. Someone is carrying the uncertainty in the customer’s demand.
The cost hidden behind flexibility
Agency labour can look beautifully simple in a small company’s accounts. Hours are ordered, workers arrive and an invoice follows. Labour remains a variable cost. The harder question is what happens before the recorded shift begins.
If a hirer expects workers to appear almost immediately, the agency must maintain that capacity somehow. It can plan and price the standby requirement. It can agree clearer volumes and response times. Or it can recruit more people than confirmed work supports and leave them waiting.
That last model may look inexpensive only because part of its cost sits outside the hirer’s ledger. The customer gets a quick answer. The agency preserves the commercial relationship. The worker carries the empty hours.
I have seen this pattern in many forms during a long Dutch professional life. A commercial promise comes first. Administration is expected to make it work afterwards. The roster, contract and payroll record then reveal whether the promise was properly financed or whether its risk was quietly passed down the chain.
The question for a founder or board is direct: what uncertainty are we accepting for customers, and who pays when our planning proves wrong?
A roster is financial evidence
Dutch on-call rules already make timing and documentation important. An on-call worker generally must receive a written or electronic call at least four days beforehand. A collective agreement may shorten that period to at least one day.
When a call is cancelled or changed within the applicable period, payment can remain due for the hours originally called. Certain short calls require at least three hours’ pay. After one year, an on-call worker must be offered fixed hours based on the average worked during the preceding twelve months.
Actual working patterns can therefore matter more than a flexible label at the top of a contract. A business that repeatedly needs the same people at the same moments eventually creates a record of its real labour need. After at least three consecutive months, average hours can also support a legal presumption about the agreed working time.
Agency work adds another layer. The agency is the employer, but the hirer determines much of the operational reality. It decides when capacity is requested, how quickly workers must respond and when a shift changes. Before placement, the hirer must provide the agency with the relevant employment conditions.
That makes the roster more than an HR planning sheet. It links the customer order, labour request, written call, cancellation, hours worked, payroll treatment and agency invoice. When those records tell different stories, the matter has already grown beyond payroll.
The worker at the centre of the chain
Return to the person waiting beside the phone. A missed shift is not an empty line on a timesheet. Housing and transport charges may continue. Food still has to be bought. When the same party controls work, accommodation and travel, irregular income can quickly deepen dependency.
The Labour Inspectorate saw this risk in an earlier analysis of more than 50 files involving labour exploitation or serious disadvantage among labour migrants. Financial gain could run through recruitment, housing, transport and dismissal. Package arrangements linking work and accommodation deserve attention as one commercial system.
For a responsible hirer, this is supplier governance. A Waadi check remains part of using an intermediary. Supplier status, employment conditions, response times, cancellations, invoices and linked worker charges belong in the same management view.
Procurement cannot negotiate the rate while HR watches the people, operations changes the shift and finance pays the invoice without anyone seeing the whole chain. That division of work is precisely how a sound commercial decision becomes a control failure.
The market also leaves little room for complacency. CBS counted 92 vacancies for every 100 unemployed people in the third quarter of 2026. Temporary-employment agencies added 6,000 jobs. The labour market has eased slightly, but agency capacity remains commercially important. That creates room for better planning, not permission to treat waiting as cost-free.
The Dutch direction is already clear
At least equivalent employment conditions for agency workers are scheduled to enter Dutch law on 31 December 2026. The Wtta admission system enters into force on 1 January 2027, with a staged transition. From 1 January 2028, the Labour Inspectorate will enforce the system, and hirers using non-admitted suppliers can face fines.
From 1 January 2028, zero-hours contracts are scheduled to give way to band-width contracts. The difference between minimum and maximum hours will generally be limited to 30 percent. Workers may refuse calls above the contractual maximum, while structurally higher hours should lead to an offer for more hours.
The direction is towards clearer commitments on income, working time and responsibility. Flexible work will remain possible. Improvisation will have less room.
A sensible internal review follows one worker’s route from labour request to payment. What was promised? When was the person called? What changed? Who authorised it? What was paid? Which costs continued?
The same review can test whether the agency’s price genuinely covers the rapid response the business expects. It may also show that a customer promise needs a different forecast, a clearer minimum volume or a more honest rate.
The worker waiting beside the phone is not outside the business model. That waiting time exists because a customer promise, forecast or staffing decision created it. Good governance starts by seeing that connection. Fair pricing starts there too.
If your staffing model depends on immediate availability, I can help you examine where the cost and risk really sit.
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan Geraedts. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan Geraedts before publication.
References
- Uitzendkrachten moeten beschikbaar blijven voor werk zonder dat ze daarvoor loon krijgen | Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie
- Ondernemersplein - Current call-contract rules, payment and roster evidence
- Rijksoverheid - Agency work and the hirer's information duty
- Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie - Stacking of work, accommodation and transport costs
- Rijksoverheid - Flex-work reform: from zero-hours work to band-width contracts
- Ondernemersplein - Admission system for agencies and hirer exposure
- CBS - Labour-market pressure does not justify unmanaged standby capacity
- Rijksoverheid - Minimum wage, deductions and payroll traceability
