In recent days, reports have circulated about new orders related to the abolition of intermediary and contracting companies.

Under the current model, a large section of the workforce is employed through indirect contracts and via contracting companies. In this structure, the employment relationship between the worker and the main institution is mediated through one or more intermediaries. In practice, these intermediaries help determine wages, contract conditions, and job security. Any change to this structure, therefore, is directly connected to the balance of power between labour and management in the workplace.

At the official level, abolishing intermediary companies is presented as a way to reduce the distance between employer and worker and to create direct contracts. But the main lesson from similar experiences in the past is that such changes do not necessarily mean the real abolition of mediation. Often, the same structure is redesigned under new names and legal forms. In many cases, contracting companies are not truly removed; their role is reproduced through labour-supply companies, temporary direct contracts, or semi-intermediary mechanisms.

From an implementation point of view, one of the main challenges is institutional fragmentation and the wide variety of employment models across different state bodies and workplaces. Some workers are employed as contractual staff, some through companies, and others on project-based contracts. This diversity makes any uniform, nationwide structural change difficult and vulnerable to selective or gradual implementation. In such conditions, policies are often applied not as a comprehensive transformation, but in a limited, step-by-step, or case-by-case manner.

There is also the experience of previous policies. The issue of “organising company-employed workers” or “changing employment status” has been raised many times before, but it has rarely produced complete results. The usual outcome has been minor changes in contracts, or the transfer of workers from one employment category to another, without fundamentally abolishing the dual and unequal structure of labour.

From a social and labour perspective, the central issue in such policies is not only the form of the contract, but the level of job security, income stability, and equal pay for equal work. One of the defining features of the contracting system is the existence of major differences in wages and benefits among workers doing the same work. Therefore, any change that fails to reduce this gap will not necessarily lead to a real improvement in workers’ lives, even if it formally removes an intermediary.

Overall, what is now being presented as the abolition of contracting companies still faces several possible outcomes in practice: from limited and gradual implementation to the reproduction of the same structure under new forms. The real test will be how this policy affects contracts, job security, and the actual reduction of wage gaps. Until these indicators change, it is impossible to speak of a definite structural transformation.

If this policy is to move beyond slogans or administrative reshuffling and lead to a real change in the situation of company-employed workers, the role of workers themselves will be decisive. Not as a passive force waiting for implementation from above, but as an active side capable of shaping the process, the quality of implementation, and even the final fate of the policy.

Similar experiences show one repeated lesson: no change in intermediary labour structures has ever been implemented in a lasting way without pressure from below. Without that pressure, reforms are either diverted from their original path or emptied of their substance during implementation. For this reason, the role of workers can be understood through several key points.

1. Turning scattered demands into a united demand

One of the structural problems facing outsourced and contract workers is fragmentation: different contracts, different companies, and different working conditions. Without turning these scattered situations into a shared demand — such as direct contracts, job security, or equal pay for equal work — policies are usually implemented selectively.

A united demand limits the possibility of bypassing the issue or carrying out the policy only partially.

2. Demanding transparency in implementation

Real implementation must be measurable. If workers limit their demand to the general slogan of “abolishing contractors”, the door remains open for the same system to return in other forms. But if the demand focuses on concrete indicators — type of contract, wage level, insurance status, job security, and benefits — the chances of distortion become much smaller.

3. Collective monitoring of the process

In policies of this kind, much of the deception happens during implementation. Continuous collective monitoring of contracts, legal changes, wage conditions, and workplace conditions makes formal or fake implementation easier to expose. Without this kind of monitoring, such policies are often absorbed and weakened inside the administrative machinery.

4. Linking employment status to wages

If abolishing contractors only changes the name or form of the contract, without improving wages and job security, the main goal has not been achieved. The demand must therefore go beyond “removing the intermediary”. It must also include real improvements in wages and employment security. This link prevents administrative reform from becoming a purely cosmetic change.

5. Refusing to hand the whole process over to decisions from above

Experience shows that whenever workers simply wait for administrative implementation, the result is either incomplete, delayed, or accompanied by deception. The role of workers here is to turn an administrative policy into a social demand that can be followed, measured, and enforced — not merely to wait for its execution.

If the abolition of intermediary companies is to become a real change, its main weight will not lie in executive will from above, but in the pressure, persistence, and unity of workers’ demands. Without this factor, the policy is likely to be reshaped, weakened, or left half-finished. But with united, clear, and measurable demands, even ambiguous policies can be pushed toward real changes in contracts, wages, and job security.