Paralysis is due to the system – not the rights

In a DN comment by Anita Hoemsnes on 11 March about overtime pay for part-time employees, the government is described as paralyzed. A reply from Minister of Labour Kjersti Stenseng refers to the fact that labour market policy is developed in the tripartite cooperation and that the solution must be found there, which is particularly important in a case that can have major consequences both financially and for the functioning of the labour market ("Too simple about the part-time issue", 14 March).

It is understandable that the case is perceived as extensive and demanding, but the explanation lies deeper than uncertain law and high costs. I think the paralysis is primarily due to two factors.

Firstly, our basic system for staffing. Although there is often talk of a full-time culture, the reality is that several industries are largely based on employees in small and medium-sized part-time positions. Much of this is voluntary part-time – students and employees in phases of life where reduced working hours are desired. At the same time, there is no doubt that this model also benefits employers. It provides flexibility and makes it easier to cover evenings, weekends and peaks in the workload.

Full-time employees may also experience less uncomfortable work as a result.

The question is whether these are good enough reasons to maintain a system that in practice requires part-time employees to regularly work in excess of the agreed FTE percentage. When extra work is planned and predictable, it is a sign that the job sizes do not match the actual demand. Then it is not the rights that are the problem, but the staffing model itself.

Secondly, we see a massive resistance from the employer side to dealing with the realities of this case. Instead of starting from the clear conclusions of the European Court of Justice and now two Norwegian district court judgments that follow up, a lot of energy is spent on discussing an alleged special Norwegian "room for manoeuvre". As long as it is not accepted that we actually have to find the solutions, it will be difficult to move forward.

Hoemsnes refers to the employers' response by saying that they may be forced to increase the use of on-call substitutes if part-time employees are paid overtime. This is a serious signal – but it is not an argument against strengthened rights. According to the Working Environment Act, temporary agency work and temporary solutions must be just that: temporary. They cannot be used to meet a permanent and predictable need for labour.

This is not just a legal discussion, but a principled debate about how we organise working life.

Of course, we support the dialogue between the authorities and the social partners, as long as the involvement is broad enough and as long as it is done quickly enough. This is not the time to cling to our old system by pointing to ambiguities and special Norwegian room for manoeuvre.

Should the flexibility continue to be borne by part-time employees, or should we take the consequences of actual staffing needs and offer positions that are proportionate to the work to be performed?