The debate over early retirement for manual labour workers in the Netherlands has reignited, fuelled by concerns over worker health, labour shortages and the future of the retirement policy. In an era where labour-intensive jobs are becoming harder to sustain as workers age, unions and policymakers are clashing over how best to support those in physically and mentally demanding professions.
In the 1970s, the Netherlands introduced the Early Retirement Scheme (VUT) during a time of high unemployment. The idea was simple: allow older workers to retire early with a monthly benefit, making room for younger people to enter the labour market. It seemed like a win-win situation. But according to economics professor Marike Knoef, the VUT didn’t work as intended. Instead of creating opportunities for younger workers, it became an expensive system that encouraged early exits from the workforce without boosting youth employment.
By 2006, as the population aged and costs rose, the government scrapped the VUT. A new scheme, the Early Retirement Scheme (RVU), allowed workers in demanding jobs to retire early, but at a steep cost to employers, discouraging its use. For many, early retirement was no longer an option unless they had significant personal savings.
However, strikes in 2021 brought a temporary reprieve. The employer tax was lifted for four years, allowing workers in heavy jobs to receive around €1,500 per month for up to three years before their official retirement age. This change acknowledged that some jobs are too hard to do full-time as people grow older. Workers in industries like the police began to use point systems to define what qualifies as a “heavy” job, taking into account physical, emotional and mental strain. However, this measure is set to expire in 2025, and unions are pushing to make it permanent.
Unions, led by FNV, argue that early retirement is crucial for workers in tough jobs. Many of these jobs, they say, involve low wages and high physical demands, leaving workers worn down before they can enjoy retirement. The police union, for example, has designated 58 out of 90 job roles as “heavy”, ranging from officers to chiefs of police. But beyond police work, unions want this system extended to other sectors, allowing more workers in demanding jobs to retire early.
While early retirement seems like a fair solution for these workers, not everyone is on board. The government, cautious about repeating the mistakes of the VUT, fears that making the RVU in its current shape permanent could lead to a new wave of premature retirements, straining the workforce and the economy. There’s also concern that the scheme could become too expensive, especially if too many workers opt for early retirement.
This caution is reflected in the government’s latest proposal, which includes a cap of 15,000 participants per year and an income limit of €74,000. Workers earning more than that would face penalties if they retire early. Unions have called this proposal “unacceptable”, arguing that people can have a “heavy” job regardless of their income. Dockworkers, for example, may earn above the threshold, but still face physically gruelling conditions that warrant early retirement.
The debate has sparked a wave of strikes across sectors, from public transport to police. Workers demand a more inclusive system that allows anyone in a heavy job to retire early, with a higher benefit to make retirement financially feasible. Currently, the benefit is roughly equivalent to the state pension, which many argue is too low to live on comfortably for three years without dipping into personal savings or pensions, which could reduce long-term financial security.
As the deadline for the RVU’s expiration looms, both sides are entrenched. The unions demand a permanent, fair system that covers all workers in demanding roles. The government, while sympathetic to the challenges of physically demanding jobs, is wary of creating an unsustainable system.
The future of early retirement in the Netherlands remains uncertain. While unions fight for a system that gives workers a dignified path out of the workforce, the government grapples with balancing the needs of these workers with the economic realities of an aging population. A lasting solution will require finding common ground, ensuring that those in heavy jobs can retire early while keeping the system financially viable for generations to come.
Written by Priyanka Sharma