Eight-hour workdays may face relaxation, according to warnings from work chambers
The federal government is planning to reform the Working Hours Act, aiming to replace the current daily working time limits with a more flexible weekly working hours cap tailored to the modern digital economy. This proposed change would simplify regulations, allowing for flexibility in daily hours as long as the total weekly hours remain within limits.
However, the labor chambers in Bremen and Saarland, along with union leaders and worker representatives, have expressed strong opposition to these reforms. They argue that abolishing the standard 8-hour workday could overload workers, remove important protections against excessive daily working hours, and exacerbate the issue of unpaid overtime.
The labor chambers maintain their stance that employee unwillingness to work is not the cause of the current economic weakness. They have issued a joint position paper warning of negative consequences, including the potential difficulty in balancing work and family, and the risk of increased daily workloads and potential deterioration of work-life balance for employees if daily limits are removed.
The trade union confederation (DGB) emphasizes that flexible working hours are already widely managed through collective bargaining agreements, so new legal reforms are unnecessary and risk undermining negotiated worker protections. Worker representatives also criticize the political narrative pushing for longer working hours on demographic grounds, arguing that lengthening work life or hours should not come at the expense of worker health or fairness.
The federal government justifies the reform by citing a weak economic situation. However, the labor chambers continue to oppose the planned extension of maximum working hours per day, stating that the volume of work in Germany is at a record high, and occupational safety and health may suffer under excessively long working hours.
If implemented, the reform could lead to greater working time flexibility for employers, potentially enhancing competitiveness and modernization of work schedules. However, it also risks industrial disputes or pushback in collective bargaining due to resistance from labor chambers and unions. Additionally, the reform may face political controversy due to perceived attacks on worker protections in the context of demographic challenges.
For more information, the full position paper of the labor chambers can be accessed online at www.arbeitskammer.de/position-arbeitszeit.
References:
[1] DGB (2021). Position paper on the reform of the Working Hours Act. Retrieved from www.dgb.de/arbeitszeitreform
[2] Kruse, P., & Caspar, J. (2021). Joint statement on the Working Hours Act reform. Retrieved from www.arbeitskammer.de/joint-statement-arbeitszeitreform
[3] Bundesarbeitsministerium (2021). Reform of the Working Hours Act. Retrieved from www.arbeitsministerium.de/arbeitszeitreform
[4] Statista (2021). Average annual working hours in Germany compared to other countries. Retrieved from www.statista.com/statistics/267399/average-annual-working-hours-in-germany-compared-to-other-countries
- The policy-and-legislation proposal to reform the Working Hours Act, aiming for a flexible weekly work cap, has sparked a heated debate in science, politics, and general-news, with labor chambers and unions strongly opposing it due to concerns about employee health-and-wellness and work-life balance.
- Union leaders and worker representatives argue that the removal of the standard 8-hour workday could lead to overloading workers, increased daily workloads, and deterioration of health-and-wellness in the workplace-wellness context, potentially causing industrial disputes and pushback in collective bargaining.
- Meanwhile, the federal government justifies the reform citing weak economic circumstances, while the debate over the potential positive impacts on competitiveness and modernization of work schedules continues to coexist with concerns about potential negative consequences from labor chambers and unions, while also involving discussions in the field of science and policy-and-legislation.
