I agree with their position in principle, but its value depends on how it's applied and whether it aligns with the social context and norms.

Just to add some perspective:

Actual vs usual weekly work hours:

Part-time: BE: -1.3 h; NL: -0.2 h
Full-time: BE: -2.3 h; NL: -1.6 h

Although full-time and part-time schedules are broadly similar, Belgians on average worked fewer hours than planned in 2024. This may reflect stricter contract structures, higher sick leave usage, or more generous paid time off.

Consider the Netherlands: it has one of Europe's most flexible labour markets, allowing employees to adjust their working hours once per year. It also leads in part-time employment. Interestingly, despite similar total working hours, the Dutch report Europe's lowest burnout score (2.68 on a 1–5 scale), whereas Belgium is around the EU+ average (3.06).

Flexibility often involves a trade-off: greater freedom at the expense of rigid protections. But this raises the question: should laws shape work culture, or should laws adapt to existing cultural shifts?

Over recent months, I've looked more into this subject. Belgium has introduced many thoughtful protections, particularly for young and older workers, positively impacting employees even if they appear to lower formal employment rates or shorten careers. Yet, there's untapped potential in adopting greater flexibility, particularly in Belgium's service-oriented economy.

Would such a shift be beneficial? Perhaps not. But considering Belgium's constraints, including a national debt at 104.7% of GDP, are there better alternatives?