When you speak with people who experienced the office closure during the pandemic and were told to return two years later, a certain moment keeps coming up. It’s not precisely anger. It’s more akin to a form of disbelief—the sensation of having proven something beyond a reasonable doubt and then witnessing that proof being rejected. We demonstrated its effectiveness. The task was completed. The productivity figures remained stable. However, the commute, the hot desk, and the badge swipe requirement still exist. That discussion has concluded differently in the Netherlands. An amendment to the current Flexible Working Act was passed by the Dutch parliament, requiring employers to take remote work requests into consideration rather than just rejecting or overturning them. “No” requires an explanation for the first time in the history of employment in Europe.
It’s important to understand the difference between the right to request and the right to work remotely. Regardless of the demands of their jobs, Dutch law does not grant every employee the right to work from home indefinitely. It does this by changing the default. In the past, a request to work from home could be denied by an employer in the Netherlands without a reason. According to the new law, the refusal must be supported by documented, legitimate business reasons, such as the fact that the job necessitates immediate physical coordination with coworkers, that the home workplace is truly inappropriate, or that the work requires equipment that is only available on-site. The request is valid if none of those requirements are met. The burden of proof has shifted from the employee to the employer, which is a subtly significant reversal when you consider how office debates have unfolded over the last five years.
The Federation of Dutch Trade Unions, which represents more than 900,000 workers across industries, strongly supported the bill, which was put forth by Senna Maatoug of the GreenLeft party and Steven van Weyenberg of the pro-European D66 party. Van Weyenberg told Bloomberg that the law had received sincere support from employer and employee unions, a coalition that would be challenging to put together around a workplace rights bill in most other nations.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| The Legislation | |
| Law Name | Work From Home Bill — an amendment to the Flexible Working Act 2015 (Wet flexibel werken), which already allowed employees to request changes to work hours, schedule, and location |
| Key Change | Previously, employers could reject remote work requests without giving any reason; under the new law, employers must actively consider all requests and provide documented, adequate reasons for refusal |
| Proposed By | Steven van Weyenberg (D66 party) and Senna Maatoug (GreenLeft party); backed by the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions, which represents over 900,000 members |
| Legislative Status | Passed by the Dutch parliament’s lower house; required Dutch senate approval before becoming law — widely described as a landmark shift in European employment rights |
| Employee Eligibility & Rights | |
| Who Qualifies | Employees who have worked for a company with at least 10 staff members for a minimum of 6 months; request must be submitted at least 2 months before the desired start date |
| Frequency of Requests | Employees may formally request changes to work location, hours, or schedule once per year |
| Work From Abroad | Employees may request to work partly from abroad, but only within EU countries; a Dutch court ruled in 2025 that long-term remote work from another country can become a permanent employment condition the employer cannot easily revoke |
| Employer Obligations | |
| Response Deadline | Employers must respond to remote work requests in writing within one month of submission |
| Valid Grounds for Refusal | Work requires in-person presence or specific equipment; essential face-to-face coordination with colleagues or clients; home workplace is unsuitable or unsafe for the role |
| Home Office Allowance | Employers may reimburse remote working costs tax-free via the thuiswerkvergoeding allowance — set at €2.45 per day in 2026, covering heating, electricity, and related home costs |
| Workplace Safety Duty | Employers must conduct a risk inventory and evaluation (RI&E) covering home working conditions; must provide ergonomic equipment if required; monitored by Netherlands Labour Authority |
| Broader Context | |
| Pre-Pandemic Baseline | 14% of the Dutch workforce worked remotely before the pandemic — the highest rate in the EU, according to Eurostat |
| Worker Preferences (2025) | A poll of 5,300 Dutch workers in finance, business, and government found 70% prefer hybrid work; only 10% want full-time office; 20% prefer fully remote |
| Expected Followers | Germany, France, and Portugal are widely expected to adopt similar legislation; UK employment law experts noted similar rights were unlikely in Britain without further parliamentary action |
According to Maatoug, the law permits employees to “find a better work-life balance and reduce time spent on commuting.” That framing struck a chord. According to Eurostat, 14% of Dutch workers were already working remotely prior to the pandemic, which was the highest percentage in the EU. The pandemic significantly increased that figure, and subsequent surveys have revealed that the majority of Dutch workers are unwilling to give it back. According to a survey of 5,300 workers in government, business, and financial services, 70% of them prefer hybrid arrangements, and only 10% want to go back to work full-time.
Beyond the initial request procedure, the law also has teeth. Long-term remote work arrangements can become a permanent employment condition, according to a 2025 Dutch court case involving an employee who had worked remotely from Ecuador for several years with the employer’s approval. The court decided in favor of the employee when the company attempted to change the arrangement by claiming a general policy change. The court determined that the employee’s personal and family interests that had developed around the arrangement could not be superseded by the company’s new policy. Any employer who permits a remote situation to develop informally without establishing clear boundaries will be significantly impacted by that decision. Eventually, silence turns into consent.
Portugal, France, and Germany are observing. Experts in employment law from several European nations have proposed that the Dutch law establishes a model that other nations will emulate, not necessarily by enacting the same laws but rather by the legal and cultural pressure it creates. The situation is more complicated in the UK, where the current flexible working regime was already undergoing revision. However, the changes fall far short of what the Netherlands has done, granting employees the ability to make requests from the moment they start working rather than after six months, but they do not impose the burden of refusal on employers. The Dutch approach was “a more nuanced way of looking at things” than a simple right to work from home, which may be how other nations eventually adopt versions of it, according to British employment lawyers.
Observing this from across the Atlantic gives me the impression that the Netherlands has chosen a name that the rest of the developed world is still debating. In the US, the return-to-office debate has mostly been handled as a corporate prerogative; businesses have policies, workers can follow them or look for other employment, and the labor market decides who has the power. When labor markets are tight and workers are free to relocate, that is a reasonable framework. When the economy changes and the balance shifts back in favor of employers, it’s a different story. The framework’s reliance on market conditions has been eliminated by the Dutch. A rise in unemployment does not negate the right to a thoughtful response. And that’s probably what makes the law worth paying attention to, more than any particular clause.
