Petteri Orpo’s Government is amending the law in order to enable employers to conclude fixed-term employment contracts of one year without a special reason. The amendment is justified by lowering the threshold for recruitment and providing a boost to employment.
At the moment, only one in five fixed-term employment contracts are valid for at least a year, and all fixed-term contracts need to have a special reason. If the Government decides to implement the amendment, it will increase the duration of fixed-term contracts and the number of employees on fixed-term contracts while causing uncertainty over income. In turn, citizens will adjust their behaviour to be more cautious, which is detrimental to Finland, but this is the inevitable price of this policy.
The Labour Force Survey carried out by Statistics Finland indicates that, at the moment, only one in five people on fixed-term contracts are on such a contract of their own will. In most cases, the reason for fixed-term employment is the lack of permanent jobs.
In the public sector, the number of people on fixed-term contracts is nearly twice as large as in the private sector. In 2024, 12.7% of employees in the private sector were on a fixed-term contract, while the figure was 23.5% in the public sector. Odd jobs and the related problems thus concern primarily the employees of the public sector, most of whom are women.
Pregnancy discrimination will become more prevalent
In Finland, fixed-term employment contracts are more common in the early stages of people’s careers. Nearly 60% of all female employees on fixed-term contracts are below 34 years of age. This stage of life, in particular, involves stress about the continuation of work after pregnancy and family leave, and this uncertainty is exacerbated by fixed-term contracts.
Of the employees who have been pregnant while holding a permanent job, 18% have faced discrimination due to their pregnancy or family leave, which already is too many. The figure among those on fixed-term contracts is a shocking 44%! The most common form of pregnancy discrimination in Finland is the discontinuation of a fixed-term employment contract. The amendment proposed by the Government will only make this shameful situation worse.
The dramatic saving measures made by employers have exposed the weak job security of those on fixed-term contracts. When jobs are cut, fixed-term employees are the first to go. Tehy members are familiar with this uncertainty, as nearly everyone has gone through the same fixed-term contract mill or is still caught within it.
The amendment will cause widespread uncertainty
As the decision-makers are facing the issues of low birthrates, poor consumer confidence and the downturn in the housing market, it would be sensible to support confidence in having access to continuous income among those who dream of having a family and owning a home. What is being done now is exactly the opposite.
The amendment would make it more difficult for those in permanent jobs to advance their careers and change jobs as well. Employers will be more tempted to recruit people on a fixed-term contract of one year instead of hiring someone in a permanent job with a six-month trial period.
In these times, Finns already face enough uncertainties, and these should be reduced. If the Orpo cabinet is wise, it will fix the financing structure of social and healthcare services and provide operators in the field with industrial peace in order to boost the confidence of both employees and employers. If the Government is very wise, it will understand that the uncertainty among employees over the continuity of their income must not be increased.
The project aiming to ease the reasons for fixed-term contracts in the law is poorly thought out and should not be implemented.