On the social dialogue front, the last few months have been anything but quiet: pension reform, work on Sundays, shop opening hours, collective agreements… All these issues have highlighted the divisions between the social partners. Caught in the middle is a government accused of leaning to the right by the trade unions and to the left by employers. As the months go by, this new social season is set to be anything but a walk in the park for the minister for labour. Marc Spautz (CSV) may well be stepping up its calls for dialogue, but the issues that land on its desk all have one thing in common: they pit interests against one another that are difficult to reconcile. Can the social dialogue promised by Luc Frieden still work and lead to compromises when the interests of the social partners diverge so sharply?

Working hours: the next bone of contention

First and foremost, the issue of working time arrangements illustrates the conflicting demands of the various parties involved. The government has set out its position: there can be no question of changing the 40-hour working week. But behind this rule lies a much broader battle over flexible working, overtime, reference periods and the ability of businesses to adapt working hours more closely to fluctuations in their business activity. And this is where the positions diverge significantly. These positions are even more polarised than in the debate on pension reform.

Employers’ organisations have long been calling for greater flexibility. Trade unions, on the other hand, fear that increased flexibility will result in an actual increase in working hours and a deterioration in working conditions. The 48-hour weekly limit, which stems in particular from the regulations governing overtime, is one of the key sticking points in the debate. The figure of 52 hours put forward by the trade unions has thus become a symbol of the confrontation. It corresponds to the possibility raised in the employers’ debate of taking greater flexibility in working hours a step further. For the trade unions, it represents, above all, the risk of the 40-hour standard being gradually undermined. Marc Spautz will therefore have to try to strike a balance between two conflicting demands: meeting businesses’ needs for flexibility without giving the trade unions the impression that the government is paving the way for an increase in working hours.

The thorny issue of the minimum wage

This will not be the only balancing act the minister will have to perform. The saga of the minimum living wage – which is far from over – has shown just how quickly social dialogue can turn into a standoff. For several weeks, trade unions and employers have held diametrically opposed positions. When craftspeople argued for the abolition of the qualified minimum social wage, Marc Spautz responded by describing the scheme as “untouchable”. Whilst the UEL refused any pay rise, the trade unions, for their part, have continued to defend the principle of increasing the minimum wage. In the spring, the government attempted to find a middle way. The compromise reached and set out in Bill 8775, which aims to implement the tripartite agreement ‘Resilienzpak 2026’ in the field of taxation – namely a combination of pay rises and tax adjustments – has not, however, brought the debate to a close, as the issue of transposing the European directive on minimum wages remains unresolved. Bill 8437 is still before a parliamentary committee, with no significant progress having been made since 7 May 2025. And Brussels has now initiated infringement proceedings against Luxembourg for failure to transpose.

Platforms in contrast

Against this backdrop of conflict, platform work could offer the minister an opportunity to reaffirm his social commitment. The bill designed to regulate this type of work is due to be tabled in the autumn, Marc Spautz stated at the end of August. In particular, the government intends to tackle situations in which workers are classified as self-employed when, in reality, they are in a relationship of economic dependence. This initiative will enable the minister to highlight another aspect of his social policy: combating abuse and guaranteeing rights for workers who are particularly vulnerable to job insecurity. It could thus serve as a useful counterbalance to the working hours debate. Whilst the debate on working hours risks reigniting the conflict between trade unions and employers, the protection of platform workers offers the government a more consensual area for action. But here too, the European timetable means that swift progress is required.

Presented, ever since he joined the government, as a supporter of social dialogue – social dialogue elevated to the status of a guiding principle by the prime minister, Luc Frieden (CSV), and reiterated at the speech delivered on the occasion of National Day –, Marc Spautz will have to deal with these three issues, which could well tarnish his public image. The challenge? To demonstrate that social dialogue is not merely a method of political communication, but that it still enables compromises to be reached. For if the minister manages to find common ground on working hours, he will be able to present the outcome as proof that the Frieden method works. If not, the issue could become the new symbol of a social dialogue that everyone talks about, but which no one can actually make work anymore.

Tomorrow: Martine Deprez on doctors and the health insurance deficit.