In the meantime, one and a half years have already passed since the AÜG reform (04/2017) came into force. Even then, many personnel service providers feared that the reform would also bring with it some difficult tasks that would have to be overcome. Many fears have now unfortunately come true. In Personalmagazin (Haufe), five personnel service providers have now drawn up an interim balance sheet, including Andreas Nusko, Managing Director of Franz & Wach Personalservice GmbH. 

Maximum transfer period causes unrest

Last October, for the first time, ended the 18-month maximum transfer period for temporary workers, which was established with the reform. Right from the start, this caused uncertainty among all those involved. According to Andreas Nusko, there was also "a great deal of incomprehension among temporary workers and customers" as a result. Unfortunately, the maximum duration of temporary employment led to an increasing number of early terminations of employment by the companies. By contrast, takeovers by customer operations did not increase significantly. 

Small businesses are disadvantaged 

The maximum duration of temporary employment has a doubly negative impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. While large corporations limit the duration of temporary employment by regula in collective bargaining agreements or through works agreements can extend this period to 48 months or more with the works council, SMEs are left behind. This is because in companies without a works council and not covered by collective bargaining agreements, only 18 months is still the maximum transfer period. In addition to the disadvantage, small and medium-sized companies are also affected by higher costs resulting from the increased recruitment effort. 

Equal pay not to be neglected either 

In addition to the maximum duration of temporary employment, equal pay is also an important issue in the industry. Indeed, since the reform, temporary workers are subject to after nine months at the latest (with industry surcharges after 15 months at the latest) must receive pay equivalent to that of the hirer's permanent employees. Thereby "the legislator has failed to define the contents conclusively", says Nusko. Due to this uncertain situation, customers often end the assignments before the nine months are reached. Again and again, new questions of detail arise, some of which can even only be clarified with the help of lawyers, authorities or associations. One important point here is, Which components must be considered for financial equality. Personnel service providers have to do a lot of work to educate their customers on the subject of equal pay. The high cost of determining the correct equal pay rate is a concern for both the customer companies and the service providers. 

Nothing works without administrative effort

In addition to the maximum period of temporary employment and equal pay, the staffing companies have above all struggle with bureaucracy. The high administrative effort results in higher costs. Andreas Nusko describes the individual tasks: "Here, it's mainly a matter of calculating deadlines, wage components and contract design. In addition, we have looked for technical or digital solutions, for example, to fulfill the concretization requirements in the most customer-friendly and yet legally compliant way possible." The changes tie up a lot of manpower in administration without bringing any benefits for temporary workers, customer contractors or the service provider itself. 

Criticism of the provisions of the AÜG reform has come true 

So, as expected, the AÜG reform has caused a lot of trouble and unrest. For temporary workers because of frequently changing assignments and possible wage losses. For the customer companies due to the additional work that the requirements entail. For the staffing companies, because of the high costs they have to bear in implementing the regulations. It remains to be seen whether there will be any improvements in the near future. 

Source: Personalmagazin, Haufe, Issue 12/2018