Despite all improvement initiatives such as the national action plan [De-]Regulate Healthcare by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in 2018 to create more time for care within the Netherlands, the administrative burden for care workers is still increasing. Managers of healthcare institutes struggle with efficiently implementing government legislations in day-to-day operations. They indicate that the time spent on administrative tasks demanded by municipalities and national authorities is too much. In addition, they also indicate that there is a lack of consistency and uniformity when it comes to the way care workers handle administrative tasks. This way of working causes additional, and often ad hoc, work in the run-up to an audit. It seems that before laws and regulations are effectively implemented, new laws or regulations again demand attention. This looks like a vicious circle, but research to confirm this is not found yet. Therefore, the following research question is formulated: "What is the impact of laws and regulations on the administrative burden with regard to the primary and supportive processes of Dutch long-term care?" An explanatory multiple case study was conducted to answer the research question. Three case studies were carried out during September 2019 to January 2020. Based on these studies, we have concluded that between 29% and 62% of the total perceived administrative burden by long-term care professionals can be related to legislation.
MULTIFILE
Multinational enterprises (MNEs) have become global players in the current globalized labour market and their economic activities are no longer territorially limited, but they extend in different countries, thereby leading to the development of global supply chains. Against this background, companies’ operations are increasingly conducted by foreign subsidiaries and they are being outsourced to business partners worldwide. In both cases, lower working conditions and production costs in foreign countries are one of the driving factors leading to this business choice.
MULTIFILE
By analysing intelligence-gathering reform legislation this article discusses access to justice for communications interception by the intelligence and security services. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, sophisticated oversight systems for bulk communications surveillance are being established across the globe. In the Netherlands prior judicial consent and a binding complaint procedure have been established. However, although checks and balances for targeted communications interference have been created, accountability mechanisms are less equipped to effectively remedy indiscriminate interference. Therefore, within the context of mass communications surveillance programs, access to justice for complainants remains a contentious issue.
MULTIFILE
