Most programs take the rule as given. Sometimes the rule itself is the most open item in the plan.
The core problem of a Europe-wide posting-compliance program was that at the start there was no regulation, but a directive. Instead of one central EU legal framework there were 31 national transpositions: 31 scope definitions, 31 requirements, 31 reporting channels. Small-state particularism in its purest form. You can see it as a first step and be patient. Only, that first step became legally binding with the enforcement regulation. Since then every company in the EU and EFTA studies 31 host-country laws and tries to work out what of it has to be implemented and how.
The rule as a stakeholder
When a rule is unclear, it becomes a stakeholder itself. It can be influenced in two places: through its wording and through its interpretation. On the wording you work long-term and politically, more on that in a moment. Interpretation is the daily craft, and one should not shy away from calling it by name. A legal text has a wording and a purpose, and between them lies interpretation. That is no trick, whole professions live off it. The question is the same for every rule: what does it really require, and what does only the most cautious reading add?
A small example makes the difference tangible. When an authority requires the translation of the employment contract, but expressly not a certified one, then a clean translation suffices. You do not have to set up an expensive certification that no one demands. The path there is no gut feeling: obtain the assessment of local lawyers, benchmark, in part external know-how, then translate into scenarios and decide. Where you deliberately interpret the narrow wording, the weighing belongs documented, so it holds at the next audit. The line is sharp: interpretation yes, non-compliance no. Whoever interprets every requirement to 110 percent dies beautifully.
On the wording itself we worked through the group’s central association representations. The case was prepared there, with background, problem and concrete improvement proposals, and gratefully received. There were general submissions to Brussels and individual ones to particular host countries where the rules are strictest. In one, the authority requires the translation of the complete employment contract for every trip. With two countries there were also calls with the local economic representatives.
Honesty remains: political mills grind slowly. From these activities no concrete relief is discernible to this day. Still, it is right to raise your voice and use the channels. Only that way are you seen at all.
Check with your next compliance program whether the rule is really fixed. If it is unclear, it belongs in the plan like any other item: with a position, an assessment and a way to influence it, legitimately, never by circumvention.