What Barbara Baarsma Tries to Tell Us About Rights

A right you are allowed to trade is not a right. It is a preference.

Barbara Baarsma is an economist who does not mince words. Her proposal is clear: make labor law more flexible, more tradeable, so employers can adapt more to fluctuations. Less dismissal protection, more short-term contracts, more ability for businesses to quickly exit unfavorable positions.

This sounds rational. Economists will say: flexibility is good for growth. And they have a point. But Baarsma's proposal stirs something fundamental about what a "right" actually is.

If you have a right, you are protected. You cannot simply be fired. You get dismissal and notice periods. You get severance. This is unpleasant for employers in shifting tides. They want to adapt more easily.

So Baarsma proposes: make rights tradeable. Employees can choose: you can take a more permanent contract with less money, or a flexible contract with more money. Everyone chooses what they want. Free choice.

But here is what is correct about it and what is not. What is correct: there are indeed employees who place more value on higher income than on dismissal protection. Young people, people in career growth, ambitious ones. For them, flexibility is attractive.

What is not correct: you cannot make a right tradeable without converting it into a preference. A right is something that cannot be taken from you. Human rights are universal because you cannot trade them. You cannot say: "Give me a higher salary and I will accept pain in my body." That is called slavery.

Labor rights work the same way. They are not meant as a preference. They are meant as protection against power imbalance. Your employer is stronger than you. Without rights, negotiations are too unequal. You accept bad terms because you need to eat.

Baarsma's proposal assumes: employees are free to choose. But freedom to choose under duress (I need to eat) is not freedom. It is negotiation under pressure.

I see this clearly in my work in the public sector. When government says "you can trade your labor contract," it sounds democratic. But what actually happens? The strongest parties negotiate well. The weakest accept bad terms. That does not lead to more equality. That leads to more inequality.

This is why rights cannot be tradeable. They are the last bulwark against power. In a labor market where your employer is many times richer, has much more information, much more power, rights are your only defense.

Baarsma frames this as a choice. "You can choose flexibility." But under conditions of unequal power, that "choice" is not real.

That said: Baarsma does have a point on one thing. Not all rights work equally well. A complete dismissal ban, or a system where dismissals are so difficult that nobody dares hire, is also not good. But the solution to that is not: make rights tradeable. The solution is: make rights rational.

Say: you can dismiss if you have good reason. Say: notice periods must be reasonable. Say: severance must cover the loss. But not: you can trade away your protection for a bit more money.

Because that is not protection anymore. That is risk. And taking risks under duress is not a choice.

Sources: Barbara Baarsma, columns and essays in Dutch media; Dutch Labor Relations; Chamber of Commerce analyses of labor market flexibility