Employment , forced termination of employment, legal issues surrounding employment and the current cabinet Balkenende IV don’t go together very well.
After the near crash of the current cabinet last year, minister Donner has said today he thinks the regulations regarding the termination of employment should be re-evaluated and perhaps even adapted to respect employers more.

Today, regulations around employment are strongly in favor of the employee, and make for a very sturdy labourmarket. It is hard to let an employee off for an employer, making the employer more picky to choose a potential employee. Besides this, and luckily for our economy, there is a shortage in people. This leads to a better market for newcomers.
Besides this: the current regulations are too strong for a flexible labourmarket such as in the United States, although it is highly unlikely that system would fit our culture in Holland.

I am in favour of creating the regulations less strict and in favour of the employee, to give employers the power to terminate employment based on the well-faring of the organization. This increased mobility makes for a better position of the organization in the international competition.
The views of Donner are controversial, and the position of the CDA-minister is being questioned by the PvdA as we speak. Also, Groenlinks has requested a ‘spoeddebat’ regarding this issue as they feel the minister is actively undermining the current political vision that is being put out there by our government nowadays. Will our cabinet topple over due to this (ongoing) debate about employment regulations?
I personally doubt it as it’ll be ignored once minister Donner is forced to take back what he said…

Disclaimer: I know this post is not as well structured as usual, I’m working on it though.
I published it as it now contains my view, be it not as well formulated as you might be familiar with.

In the USA, the race is on. All candidates for the democratic and the republican parties did it, previous to and even during their campaign. Fund raising through dinners, shows and private parties.
Anyone with money and a little affiliation is welcome. Luckily, the fund raising is not anonymously, all gifts have to be registered and published.

Back to our country, and the reality of our politicians. In The Netherlands, political parties are state-funded based on their number of votes in the last election. More voters means a bigger cheque from the state. Simple and clear. No party is being maltreated or neglected, every party is being treated the same. Just the way we like it.

Not too long ago, mrs. Verdonk has left her party (VVD) to go about on her own. With more than half a million personla votes during the last elections, she felt it was her right to keep the spot in our Tweede Kamer. Undeniably right. But, she did not want to found a party. Like Geert Wilders (PvV), she’s aiming for a ‘beweging’ (movement) which has no members, and unlike Wilders, her movement is not even registered with the Kiesraad (the authority registering parties for elections in our country)

Because of not being a true party, Verdonk’s movement ‘Trots op Nederland’ (TON) is not eligible for funding by the state, and as she cannot afford to finance the movement on personla basis, private funding is needed.
Only recently, a dinner party was organized in the Passenger Terminal next to the IJ in Amsterdam. For only €500 per person, you could enjoy dinner with Verdonk, and for those not being this wealthy the afterparty only was €75. Dinner fund raising has been a subject in the Tweede Kamer for years, as it is not regulated. At all.
For instance: all gifts over €4538 have to be registered and communicated, but failing to do so does not incur a penalty. Go figure.

The new law which has been planned for years, private gifts above €20.000 cannot be made, and all gifts over €2.000 have to be registered and communicated. More importantly, not complying to these regulations involve penalizations to encourage parties a little more.
What do you think?
Fund rasing good or bad?

Yes, the title does indeed say "constitutional discrimination", as this is what the European Commission thinks of the practice in our country.
Recently, the European Commissioner of Social Affairs Vladimir Spidla has sent the Dutch government a letter concerning the treatment of homosexuals, and the more strict compliance to a European regulation stemming from the year 2000.

This guidance is prohibiting discrimination on religion or conviction, age, handicap, sexe, or sexual preferences. Our country will be tried before the European Court of Justice in two months if we do not comply.
This is where Spidla is hitting a nerve, as our ‘Algemene wet Gelijke Behandeling’ does not allow confessional institutions to refuse homosexuals a job solely on the basis of their sexual preferences. It does allow for the refusal of the person, if his or her acting or behavior is in contradiction with the principles the employer tries to carry out. This nuance in our law is for example used by Christian schools to refuse gay employees, where the cohabitation of the person is important to the foundation of the rejection.
The hurt is directly dependent on our constitution, for it houses a contradiction which has remained unsolved ever since the conceiving of the constitution. Article 1 says discrimination is prohibited, but according to article 6 anyone can believe and confess to their own belief(s), individually or in communion with others, while article 23 regulates the freedom of education, ánd the freedom to employ teachers.

With the letter from Spidla, Holland is faced with a diabolical dilemma.
Do we disavow centuries of history and our very own constitution for Europe? Or do we declare constitutional discrimination to be inalienable to our nation?

Bad, bad American banks. Giving mortgages to people who have a high risk of not being able to pay the monthlee fees, and reselling the packaged mortgages to other institutions.
Oh well, it has happened, and we cannot do anything about it.

With the prices of housing stagnating, and the dollar decreasing in value, a crisis of unknown propotions seems inevitable. With many mortgages turning out to be non-collectable, decreasing prices of homes and a worsening competitive position, the American economy is up for something. Standard&Poor has calculated banks and financial instututions affected by the imminent happening already have written off about 146 billion dollar, and another 265 billion is to follow.

These dazzeling numbers, perhaps a bit overestimated, have to be concerning for all those involved, yet our government stays relatively cool under it.
Balkenende en our minister of Finance Bos have both claimed we are in quite a good position, and are only sideways affected by any bad mishaps, if they occur.
This relative lack of interest is awkward, and not appripriate for the current times.

With our country and its economy relying on the financial sector (ING, ABN AMRO, Rabobank) any bad developments among one of these banks is disproportionally affecting our day-to-day life. A risk our leaders will have to be aware of, yet they do not show it.
Proclaiming positive messages when not appropriate is giving false hope to the citizens, and can thus be claimed to be lying.
This is not what they intended, now is it?