1. What the government plans
The Merz coalition has proposed a major change to Germany’s Arbeitszeitgesetz: replace the current daily eight-hour limit with a pure weekly cap. Today, § 3 ArbZG limits working time to eight hours per working day (with an exception up to ten hours if the six-month average is eight). The new plan would instead rely on a weekly reference, aligned with the European working time directive that allows up to a 48-hour weekly average.
Legal background and stated safeguards
The government says rest periods and break rules will remain untouched: eleven hours of minimum daily rest and existing pause obligations would continue to apply. A mandatory electronic timekeeping system is also planned to document hours and enforce overtime rules in line with the European Court of Justice ruling from 2019.
2. How this would work in practice
Under the proposed weekly logic, employers could schedule longer single workdays as long as the average working time over the reference period (for example six months) does not exceed 48 hours per week. That shift from a daily ceiling to a weekly average changes how peak workloads and quiet periods are balanced.
How the “73.5-hour week” calculation appears
Critics and some studies have pointed out a theoretical worst-case: if a worker is awake for 24 hours, must have eleven hours of rest and takes the legally required minimum break time (45 minutes), the remaining usable time for work can be calculated. Here’s the arithmetic often cited in the debate.
- 24 hours in a day
- Minus 11 hours minimum rest = 13 hours
- Minus 45 minutes minimum breaks (rounded to 0.75 hours) = 12.25 hours per day (12 hours 15 minutes)
- 12.25 hours × 6 working days = 73.5 hours in a single week
That theoretical 73.5-hour week is why opponents use the phrase “73.5-hour week” as a political shorthand. The plan would still require the long-term average to be 48 hours, but critics argue the weekly approach could allow extreme weekly peaks that are then averaged out over quieter periods.
3. Who it would likely affect — Michael Hüther and the IW perspective
Michael Hüther, head of the Institute of the German Economy (IW), supports targeted flexibilization rather than a blanket rule change for all workers. The IW proposes applying the weekly logic mainly in areas where it is organizationally and economically sensible, not across the entire labor market.
Sectors and job types named in the debate
- IT and project work: project peaks followed by quieter phases where weekly averaging could help manage overtime and free days.
- Health and care: shift and weekend services that already push current limits and could gain planning flexibility.
- Seasonal work (agriculture, tourism, gastronomy): busy seasons with long days and slower periods later.
- Logistics, transport and industrial shift operations: round-the-clock operations where machine utilization and shifting peaks make day-by-day limits restrictive.
Hüther emphasizes that the change should primarily affect qualified, well-paid employees with significant bargaining power and flexibility—often those covered by strong collective agreements and with works council representation—rather than low-paid or vulnerable workers.
4. Arguments in favor
Supporters—Merz, parts of the coalition, employers and business-oriented think tanks like the IW—put forward several practical and economic arguments for switching to a weekly cap.
Main pro arguments
- Flexibility: Allows businesses and employees to adapt hours to real workload cycles (project peaks, seasonal needs, shift overlap).
- Competitiveness: Backers say German firms need more flexible time rules to compete internationally and coordinate with global teams.
- Retention of skilled workers: Some professionals prefer to work longer for a short period and take compensatory time off later.
- Legal clarity with timekeeping: Introducing electronic time records supports enforcement and transparent overtime accounting.
5. Criticisms and risks
Trade unions, labor researchers and parts of the political opposition warn that removing the daily cap risks worsening health, work–life balance and protections for weaker employees. The DGB, WSI and others argue the reform could be used by employers to push workers into extreme weekly loads.
Health, social and enforcement concerns
Key worries raised by critics include the following:
- Health risks: longer single workdays can increase fatigue, accidents and long-term health problems.
- Pressure on vulnerable workers: low-paid employees or those without strong representation may be coerced into long hours despite promises of averaging out.
- Implementation gap: promised compensations and averages may not materialize in many workplaces, especially where works councils or unions are weak.
- Public perception and political backlash: The “73.5-hour week” slogan has already become a potent political critique, increasing public anxiety about deregulation.
Surveys and the WSI study indicate a majority of workers fear negative outcomes for rest, health and family life if the daily limit is removed. Unions call for keeping the eight-hour day as a binding safeguard rather than relying on averages and employer goodwill.
6. Political context and next steps
The proposal has exposed rifts inside the coalition. Labor Minister Bärbel Bas (SPD) has distanced herself from a blanket abolition of the daily limit, arguing the goal is targeted flexibility—especially for parents—rather than generally longer hours. The coalition agreement mentions a weekly option, but Bas is reportedly seeking to narrow its scope.
Parliamentary process and key milestones
- June: government planned to present a draft law (Gesetzentwurf) and hold a broad consultation with social partners.
- Following the draft: intensive hearings and parliamentary debate in the Bundestag.
- Opposition efforts: Left and Greens demand keeping the eight-hour day and have tabled motions to defend it.
- Possible outcomes: a compromise restricting weekly logic to certain sectors or employee groups, coupled with strict safeguards and enforcement.
How this plays out depends on political negotiations, union mobilization, and possible legal safeguards such as preserving tariff autonomy, strengthening works councils, and guaranteeing effective electronic time tracking.
7. Practical advice for workers and employers
Whether you are an employee or an employer, the debate is a reminder to pay attention to contracts, representation and time records. Here are practical steps to prepare.
Tips for workers
- Check your employment contract and any applicable collective agreements to know your current protections.
- Engage with your works council (Betriebsrat) or union if your workplace has one; they can negotiate safeguards and monitor abuses.
- Keep personal time records and insist on transparent, electronic timekeeping where available.
- Be aware of rest period and break entitlements; these remain critical legal protections.
Tips for employers
- Plan staff rosters around health and safety, not just short-term productivity gains.
- Use electronic timekeeping to ensure compliance and build trust with employees.
- Work with works councils and unions to design fair averaging arrangements and compensatory leave.
- Maintain or strengthen collective bargaining solutions where possible to avoid one-size-fits-all legal changes.
8. Short conclusion
Replacing the eight-hour daily limit with a weekly ceiling is a consequential shift in Germany’s labor law. Proponents say it brings modern flexibility and international competitiveness; critics warn of health risks and pressure on weaker workers. The outcome will depend on parliamentary debate, the scope of any exemptions, enforcement through electronic timekeeping, and the strength of collective bargaining and works councils to protect employees. For now, the reform is unsettled and will require careful safeguards if it moves forward.
