Marketed as a step toward “flexibility,” the proposed legislation would allow workdays of up to 13 hours—three days a week—or 10-hour shifts across four days, effectively changing the rhythm of the traditional workweek. The bill, currently being finalized, is set to enter public consultation before heading to Parliament in September.
While the government claims the changes are meant to reflect the “realities of modern work” and respond to both business demands and worker preferences, critics warn that the move risks undermining long-standing labor protections under the guise of modernization.
The Ministry insists the eight-hour workday remains untouched, that annual leave rights are preserved, and that extended schedules will not be imposed year-round. Yet, the expansion of daily and weekly working hours—even with conditions—marks a significant departure from the norms that have governed labor relations for decades.
Under the new framework, individual agreements between employer and employee would become the main mechanism for determining schedules—raising concerns about unequal bargaining power, particularly in sectors where workers are vulnerable or lack union representation. The draft allows a single employer to require up to 13 hours of work per day, as long as total working hours average no more than 48 per week over a four-month period and rest breaks are formally observed. Overtime pay is promised—20% extra for the ninth hour in a five-day week and 40% for up to three hours of daily overtime—but enforcement and real-world compliance remain uncertain, especially in industries already plagued by under-the-table practices.
The bill also extends these provisions to part-time and rotational workers—particularly in sectors such as tourism and hospitality—who would now be able (or expected) to work beyond their scheduled hours, up to 13 hours per day, with appropriate compensation. While the Ministry portrays this as an opportunity for increased earnings, labor experts caution that it could lead to overwork and exhaustion, particularly for precarious workers who may feel pressured to accept long hours to keep their jobs.
Another controversial component is the formalization of highly flexible working time arrangements, now allowed not only annually but even weekly. These agreements could be made on an individual basis, without collective bargaining or union oversight, raising alarms about the potential erosion of standardized protections. Though touted as helpful for parents seeking compressed workweeks, such models also risk normalizing long daily shifts that may not suit all workers.
In a move that further raises eyebrows, the bill proposes two-day “mini-contracts” designed to meet short-term or emergency staffing needs. While the process would be streamlined via mobile apps, the measure is seen by critics as another step toward a gig-economy style model, where job security and continuity are sacrificed for “efficiency.”
Other changes include giving employees the right to request fragmented annual leave—again, contingent on employer approval—and reaffirming that any wage reduction following the introduction of the
Digital Work Card will be deemed an unlawful change in contract terms. This latter point, while meant as a safeguard, acknowledges the broader anxiety surrounding the increased digitization of labor oversight and the potential for employer abuse.
Despite the Ministry's assurances that all changes will be voluntary and regulated, labor unions and legal analysts warn that the bill opens the door to a more deregulated labor market where rights are negotiated one-on-one rather than collectively defended.
