Has temporary staffing really become more expensive? A first look at the new CLA in practice

When the new Collective Labor Agreement (CLA, or CAO in Dutch) for Temporary Workers came into effect on January 1st, 2026, it brought a significant change for employers and temporary staffing agencies in the Netherlands. There were questions about rising costs, new administrative requirements, and what these changes would ultimately mean for flexible staffing.

Now that the initial implementation phase has largely passed, we can start to look at how the new rules are working in practice. Has temporary staffing really become much more expensive? Are employers reconsidering their flexible workforce? Or is the reality more nuanced than many initially expected?

Based on what we have seen so far, the impact goes much further than rates alone.

More than just a salary change

One of the most important changes under the new CLA is the move toward equivalent employment conditions for temporary workers.

Previously, temporary worker remuneration was largely determined through the "inlenersbeloning", or hirer's remuneration system, which took several specific elements into consideration. Under the new CLA, the total employment package of a temporary worker must be at least equivalent in value to that of an employee performing the same or a comparable role at the client organization.

That means looking beyond base salary and a limited list of other benefits. 

Allowances, additional days off, periodic salary increases, leave arrangements, reimbursements and other employment conditions all need to be taken into account. In practice, this requires a much more complete picture of the employment conditions within an organization.

And that has been one of the biggest changes for employers.

Employment conditions are not always stored neatly in one place. Relevant information can be spread across a company CLA, employee handbook, internal policies and separate arrangements. Details that may previously have received relatively little attention suddenly need to be identified, assessed, and shared with the staffing agency.

Careful implementation takes cooperation

For our team, it was clear from the beginning that implementing the new CLA properly would require more than simply adjusting a few salary calculations, or adding a few new benefits to the system.

We invested significant time in reviewing employment conditions with our clients, adapting internal processes and systems, and making sure the necessary information was available to determine equivalent remuneration correctly.

Our clients also had work to do. HR teams often needed to gather and verify considerably more information than before. This made close cooperation between the employers and our recruitment and administration team especially important.

The first stage was therefore largely about information and implementation: understanding the requirements, gathering details, and putting the right processes in place.

Now, the conversation is increasingly moving toward what the CLA means in day-to-day staffing decisions.

So, has temporary staffing actually become more expensive?

This is understandably one of the biggest questions for employers.

The answer is: sometimes, but not across the board.

In our experience, the financial impact tends to depend heavily on the employment conditions within the client organization. Where the employment package is relatively straightforward, the difference can be limited. Organizations with more extensive CLA arrangements or a wide range of additional benefits may see a greater effect on the cost of employing temporary workers.

It is also difficult to look at staffing rates in isolation.

Labor market conditions, wage developments and increasing employer costs all influence the final rate. This means that not every increase can automatically be attributed to the new temporary workers' CLA, and that the final rate is dependent on not only the company’s own salary and benefits scheme, but also how this will be equivalently provided in a package for temporary workers. 

The bigger investment, therefore, seems to have taken place behind the scenes in the implementation itself. Staffing agencies, like Undutchables, have had to invest in areas such as software, training, and adjusted processes, while employers have spent more time gathering, checking, and communicating detailed employment information.

Are employers changing their flexible workforce?

Another big question before the introduction of the new CLA was whether higher costs and additional administration would cause employers to move away from temporary staffing.

So far, that is not what we are seeing.

Clients are asking more questions about rates, employment conditions, administration and the financial impact of different staffing arrangements. That makes sense. Employers want to understand what they are paying for and which form of employment best suits their situation.

At the same time, the need for flexibility has not disappeared.

When an organization needs to fill a position, cost is only one consideration. Employers also need to think about questions such as:

• How quickly do we need someone to start?
• How easy or difficult is this profile to find?
• Do we need flexibility because the workload or duration of the role is uncertain?
• What administrative responsibilities do we want to manage ourselves?
• What recruitment and labor market expertise do we need from an external partner?

For some vacancies, permanent recruitment will make the most sense. For others, temporary staffing, secondment or another flexible solution may still be the better fit.

The new CLA has not removed the need for hiring flexibility. It has encouraged employers to look more closely at how their workforce is structured and why they choose a particular hiring model, as well as increasing information-sharing and collaboration between the triangle of employer, employee, and agency. 

From implementation to a more professional approach

It is still too early to draw final conclusions about the long-term effect of the new CLA on the Dutch flexible labor market, but the first experiences since implementation paint a more nuanced picture than simply "temporary workers have become much more expensive."

Yes, costs have increased in some situations. And yes, implementing equivalent employment conditions required a considerable amount of work from both staffing agencies and employers.

At the same time, we have not seen a widespread move away from temporary staffing.

If anything, the change has placed more emphasis on transparency, accurate employment information and good employment practices. It also makes cooperation between employer and staffing partner even more important and reliable.

Flexible employment continues to serve a valuable purpose in the market, particularly when organizations need to respond to changing workloads, temporary staffing needs, or difficult-to-fill positions. The difference is that employers now have another reason to look carefully at the complete picture, rather than comparing staffing solutions based on price alone.