Why does the fair practice code really only apply to the arts?

Our administrators and elected representatives will not openly admit it, but they do not really care about a healthy cultural sector, let alone the position of individual creators and artists. After all, making a Fair Practice Code mandatory without increasing the budget for culture is a slap in the face of everyone working in the arts sector.

'Then be openly indifferent, then cut corners altogether and then actually destroy it so that something new can come in.' This says a combative Vincent Brons. I spoke to this actor and theatre-maker at Festival Boulevard. There, he and Marte Boneschansker held editorial for Bühne Bisoux, a self-published magazine in which conversations between theatre makers determine the content. Last November, the third issue was published, entirely dedicated to the catch-all term 'the young maker'. That issue is a must-have if you like beautifully designed print material, and an absolute must-read if the position of the young maker matters to you.

Other role

In total, they interviewed thirty-three young makers about fair practice, practice and the future. 'The idea was to outline the current working practices of a new generation of makers and their diverse experiences. What turned out? The daily reality turned out to be quite similar among all thirty-three and very much confirmed the need for fair practice,' says Brons.

This year, Brons and Boneschansker's research into fair practice was part of Boulevard's research and development programme. During the festival, they spoke to a mixed group of international makers, artistic directors and producers on the subject of fair practice and its code. But what do Dutch makers actually think about the Fair Practice Code? 'That is an interesting question, because the fair practice code has been given a completely different role than Kunsten '92 had envisaged,' says Brons.'The code was written as the start of a conversation, as a tool for raising awareness.'

Exemplary

Brons: 'We should not pretend that the code is very clear; if you read it carefully, almost every sentence can be interpreted in different ways. So why is it that we as a cultural sector have allowed ourselves to be tempted to have this code adopted in black and white in national cultural policy? And that this is seen as a solution, when that was not the intention at all when it was created. It was a starting point and now it is a subsidy condition that bites us in the ass.'

What Brons says is exemplary of the uncertainty in which the cultural field was left by the minister of OC&W just before the summer - with the announced principles for cultural policy 2021-2024. The Fair Practice Code becomes a subsidy condition for working towards 'the new normal'. This is because the labour market in the cultural sector is worrisome. This is shown by various studies published in recent years on this subject, by, among others BKNL (October 2017), the Economic and Social Council (April 2017), and the Platform Makers (January 2018)

Grant condition

So what makes that in the Netherlands, a first impetus to dialogue on fair practice from the cultural sector, on the advice of the highest advisory body, is festively welcomed by politicians and policymakers as a subsidy condition? While there are other subsidy-receiving sectors (education? agriculture? healthcare?) where this is not the case, but where there are also issues surrounding the position of individual professionals and/or self-employed workers.

First of all, there is the letter which the Regiegroep Arbeidsmarktagenda Culturele en Creatieve Sector sent to Minister van Engelshoven last April. In it, chairman Evert Verhulp advocates the introduction of the Fair Practice Code as a subsidy condition, with the main rule: 'apply and explain' (a remarkable wording that in itself raises the necessary questions).

And, even though the Code still contains few guidelines, the direction group says that "with just under 40 collective agreements in the sector - which we are trying to streamline - and with guidelines, standard amounts, rate lists, hour indicators, model contracts and experience figures, there is enough to apply. Gradually, though, the principles will be translated into concrete agreements and rates, they expect. And of course, introducing the code as a condition also creates obligations for the grantmaker, namely: 'increase budgets for BIS institutions and funds.'

Cartel

The Regiegroep's reasoning falls short here on two counts. First, it assumes that payment according to existing guidelines, standard amounts and/or rate lists are fair practice. The platform for freelance musicians has shown that the established remunerations for remplacements in orchestras are anything but fair compared to salaried musicians, let alone having a strong position in collective bargaining. Until recently, it was impossible for self-employed musicians to make a fist together in negotiations on working conditions and rates, because: cartelisation. Last July, however, the Consumer & Market Authority published a draft guideline on rate agreements for self-employed workers, which would make this possible - albeit under very strict conditions. See this article in NRC and this blog On what this means concretely for the cultural sector.

So that this would rid us of the problem of structural underpayment of individual creators (artist, musician, actor, writer, etc) is out of the question, but it is a positive sign. Although you could also see it as a drop in the ocean.

Error of judgement

The second and much bigger problem surrounding the whole 'implementation' of the Fair Practice Code is the collective error of judgement with which the cultural sector has embraced Kunsten '92's noble initiative. Why did we think this would give us a rock-solid tool in the lobby to completely reverse the 2011 cuts? You can blame Van Engelshoven for a lot, except that she has been very clear from the start about one thing, there will be no extra money: 'Fair pay comes before the quantity of production or employment in the sector.' Point.

The cultural sector has to make do with that. But how different would it be if the minister took the same position regarding education? Equal pay for teachers in primary and secondary education would become a subsidy condition, with no extra money set aside by the ministry for this purpose, because fair pay is more important than employment in education. Sounds absurd, right? Right.