De kwaliteit van de WMCZ als medezeggenschapswet

The thesis is about an act named the ‘WMCZ’. This act, which became law on 1 June 1996, contains co-determination rights for clients of collectively financed organizations in the fields of social care and health care. During its period as a bill, as well as after it became law, there was a lot of criticism of the WMCZ. The criticism concerned in general: (a) the necessity of the WMCZ (b) the scope of the WMCZ and (c) the contents of the WMCZ. This gave cause to examine if the realization of the WMCZ has been in agreement with the Dutch criteria for the quality of regulation and, if so, to what extent. The results of several evaluation researches regarding the WMCZ were used for this particular examination, as well as the experiences that had already been acquired with two other laws on co-determination rights, namely the ‘WOR’ (which creates co-determination rights for employees and their works councils) and the ‘WMO’ (which creates co-determination rights for teachers, pupils and/or their parents). The assessment led to the conclusion that most criticism of the WMCZ is well-founded. Although a legal prescription for clients’ participation appears to be necessary, the form of participation that is prescribed by the WMCZ – that of co-determination through a clients’ council – does not in any case appear to be an effective and efficient way to achieve the goals of the WMCZ, i.e. strengthening the legal position of the clients on a collective level and improving the match between the supply and the demand of care. The legislator also did not succeed in finding the right balance in the WMCZ between the things that need to be regulated by law and the things that can be left to self-regulation.

• View at Worldcat

Full Text ( Final Version , 15kb )