The difference between public and private, when it comes to wages

This is a response to the column written by Ingrid Koppelman (Director of Sport and Exercise at FNV) on Zwembadbranche on 12-7-2022

Link: https://www.zwembadbranche.nl/familiegevoel-en-scheefgroei-de-spagaat-van-de-zwembadmedewerker/

The swimming industry is divided. Not standing side by side, but with a little Switzerland in between. The dividing line: public or private. On the public side are the listed swimming-industry partners that operate municipal pools. On the private side are the swim-school owners and the operators of their own pools. The big difference between the two comes down to subsidies and, since Covid, the SPUK IJZ (Specific Grant for Ice Rinks and Swimming Pools) scheme.

Discontent has been simmering within the industry for a while now when it comes to its vision for the future. The public sector, hand in hand with the political establishment, is pushing for unity under a single certificate, a single team, and above all pomp and splendour under the wing of political The Hague. The private sector, meanwhile, is busy licking its wounds after the Covid period, when tens of thousands of euros went up in smoke, pensions were tapped, and there was almost literally dry bread on the table just to be able to keep teaching at all.

It is the private sector that has taken the hardest hits. Covid, energy, staff shortages and rising staffing costs. There is no pot of money to dip into to cover the damage and shortfalls here, and wherever possible these costs will be passed on one-to-one to the customer, the parents of the children. Those parents pay a set amount for the swimming lessons that has everything baked into it. Pool rental, gas, water and electricity, staff, administration and so on. These amounts sit considerably higher than at public pools, which receive top-ups through various subsidies and have been able to soften the damage of Covid lockdowns thanks to the SPUK IJZ scheme.

The FNV seems to be piling on top of all this. In the blog by FNV sport figurehead Ingrid Koppelman, a picture is painted of the hard-working swim-school owner or pool operator, without any subsidy, taking the easy way out, showing no appreciation for their staff and, on top of that, treating those staff with contempt by refusing to follow the minimum-wage increase on the public side of the swimming industry.

A swim-school owner or commercial pool operator chose their profession out of a passion for the trade and a desire to make the world just a little better by offering their expertise and skills to children and adults. It is a choice that has often grown out of a difference of vision with their old workplace, or out of the conviction that things could be done better. And besides, setting the minimum wage is and remains a matter for the government; it is not determined by the market.

It is easy to talk when you are employed by a large operator or a municipality and there are subsidy funds standing ready to support any shortfalls and growth. And if, through unforeseen circumstances, the subsidy turns out not to be enough, you can simply apply for additional funding. That makes the FNV's position all the more absurd. It reads: “Our position is clear: budget for staff first. Good, capable staff are of great value to the pool and to the swimming industry. The people who earn your money are not a balancing item; they are the beating heart of your business.” But of course every commercial owner knows how important good staff are and is more than willing to show their appreciation for them. The trouble is that they are tied to an end user, and that end user is the parents who ultimately have to pay for the swimming lessons.

To give a little insight into the how and why when it comes to salaries, here is an example from practice. A swim school currently applies salaries in line with the CAO-zwembaden 2021 (collective labour agreement for swimming pools). This already includes an uplift, because the minimum wage on its own offers rather too little in the way of recognition. Looking at the FNV's demand to raise minimum wages to 14 euros, this would push the wage bill up by 30 to 40%. On top of that comes the CAO-zwembaden the FNV is promoting, which requires compulsory participation in the pension fund at a very high percentage. So add another 15% on top of the entire wage bill. This has to be paid for somewhere, and so it will have to be passed on to the parents. That would require an average increase of 10 to 15% in the cost of swimming lessons. And after the explosive rise in energy costs, many pools and swim schools have already gone up by as much as 10%. In short, this would mean that a swimming certificate becomes 25% more expensive at the commercial providers.

What the FNV can be blamed for is, above all, stirring up trouble. Put your ear to the ground and listen to the commercial swim schools before drawing conclusions that simply cannot be based on the facts. Subjective assumptions that only cause unrest in an industry that is already ablaze. Start the conversation and put yourself in the shoes of the “other side” as well.

Quite apart from the fact that staff must be paid well – not least because of the high level of responsibility they carry in making children water-safe – this must not come at the expense of the people it is really all about. The children whose parents will soon no longer be able to afford the swimming lessons.