By choosing to organise a debate on the organisation of working time rather than on reducing it, the government has set the policy framework for the forthcoming reform. The aim is not to reopen the debate on the 40-hour week, but to modernise the Labour Code by focusing on greater negotiated flexibility. This is a way of avoiding a head-on clash with employers whilst launching a wide-ranging social reform programme.

Speaking to MPs, the Minister for Labour, Marc Spautz, made it clear that a blanket reduction in statutory working hours was not on the government’s agenda. However, he left the door open to agreements negotiated with a view to making working hours more flexible. Rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach, the minister is focusing on strengthening social dialogue and adapting to the realities of each sector. “Whilst digitalisation enables productivity gains in certain areas, others, such as manufacturing or the care sector, require a continuous physical presence,” he said in support of his position.

By leaving most of the changes to be determined by collective agreements, Marc Spautz is shifting the focus of the reform. Rather than imposing a new legal framework, he intends to give the social partners considerable leeway in order to avoid “trench warfare”.

A solution negotiated between the social partners is always preferable to a measure imposed unilaterally.

Marc Spautz, Minister for Labour

The organisation of work was the first major social reform spearheaded by Marc Spautz. And his approach stood in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Georges Mischo: no ideological reform, no public clashes with trade unions and employers, a focus on social dialogue and gradual adjustments rather than a major reform.

The minister’s strategy is based on striking a balance between business competitiveness and the protection of employees. He has pledged to ensure that the reform process remains transparent and constructive, placing the social partners at the heart of future decisions. In his view, “any successful reform must necessarily involve social dialogue, and a solution negotiated between the social partners is always preferable to a measure imposed unilaterally by the government”, thereby avoiding “trench warfare”.

Rather than a rigid law, the government wishes to promote negotiated flexibility measures. It has outlined three such measures. This approach will soon be reflected in a number of pieces of legislation. The minister wants to make the time-saving account more attractive, adapt the Work Organisation Plan (POT) to suit SMEs, and keep the four-day week within the scope of collective bargaining, without making it a legal right.

Speaking to MPs, the Minister for Labour announced that legislation would shortly be tabled to reform family and maternity leave, with a view to making them more flexible. Furthermore, the legal framework the right to disconnect will be clarified to better reflect the realities of modern working life. With regard to remote working, the minister acknowledged the complexity surrounding tax and social security rules for cross-border workers. He raised the possibility of creating work “hubs” close to the borders to reduce journey times without imposing an administrative burden on businesses or employees.

The majority is committed to reform through flexibility

MPs from the coalition have closed ranks behind their minister. Neither the CSV nor the DP is questioning the principle of the 40-hour working week. The reform of working practices must, above all, address the difficulties faced by employees in their day-to-day lives. Both for Charles Weiler (CSV) only for Carole Hartmann (DP), it is long commutes, remote working, the new expectations of younger generations, recruitment difficulties, digitalisation and changing family structures that are making it necessary to rewrite a Labour Code that has become too rigid.

A reworking based on the government’s three-pronged approach: greater flexibility, more collective bargaining and fewer uniform rules. The message to employers is clear: the reform will not aim to automatically increase labour costs, but to offer greater scope for organisation.

This approach has not really convinced the opposition. Whilst the LSAP, déi Gréng and déi Lénk accept the principle of modernising labour law, they take issue with the philosophy underpinning the reform. In their view, the rise in burnout and long-term absences and psychosocial problems shows that the issue goes far beyond the organisation of working hours. They put forward a different view: if productivity increases as a result of digitalisation and artificial intelligence, some of these gains should be passed on to employees in the form of extra free time.

That is where the real divide lies. For the majority, flexibility is a means of boosting competitiveness. For the left, it is only acceptable if it is accompanied by a sharing of productivity gains.

An opposition in disarray

Whilst united in their assessment of the situation, the opposition is divided over the solutions. The LSAP remains true to its tradition of social dialogue. Georges Engel advocates a gradual reduction in working hours, but only within the framework of collective agreements. Bernard’s Warbler (the Greens) have adopted a cautious stance. The Greens are not making the four-day week an immediate demand and are instead prioritising targeted measures aimed at young parents or the voluntary sector. Conversely, Marc Baum (déi Lénk) places the debate in a historical context. For the left-wing party, limiting working hours remains one of the key indicators of social progress, and increased flexibility is likely, above all, to make employees available at all times.

Another strategy is emerging within the Piraten party. Sven Clement rejects the traditional dichotomy between competitiveness and social protection. He advocates “symmetrical flexibility”, in which employees would have the same capacity to adapt as businesses. Seeking to be more pragmatic than dogmatic, he proposes trialling the four-day week through a pilot scheme before drawing any policy conclusions.

As for the ADR, Michel Lemaire considers that the real problem lies not in working hours, but in regional planning. Traffic jams, the cost of housing, the concentration of jobs and staff shortages are thought to explain employees’ dissatisfaction more than working hours themselves. In short: working time policy cannot be separated from policies on mobility, spatial planning and housing.

Battle plans

This initial debate provided a fairly accurate picture of the balance of power and the issues that will be addressed. In the short term, the debate will focus on time-saving accounts, flexible working hours and collective agreements. But the real issue lies elsewhere: how should the productivity gains from an economy transformed by digitalisation and artificial intelligence be distributed? If technology does indeed make it possible to produce more with less human labour, who will benefit from this additional wealth: businesses, employees or the public purse?

Behind the reform of working time arrangements lies, in reality, a renegotiation of the Luxembourg social compromise.