1. Overview
In early 2026 the economic wing of Germany’s CDU, organised in the Mittelstands- und Wirtschaftsunion (MIT) under chair Gitta Connemann, has proposed removing the general legal right to request part-time work. The MIT argues this change is necessary to address a severe skills and labour shortage and wants to restrict part-time to situations with specific reasons such as child care, family care or training. The proposal has provoked debate inside the party and across society because it touches on workers’ rights, family choices and employer needs.
2. The proposal in detail
What the proposal would change
The proposal aims to abolish the broad statutory right to part-time work that currently allows employees to request reduced hours after a qualifying period. Under the suggested rules, part-time would still be permitted for defined social or professional reasons — for example, for child-raising, caring for relatives, or continuing education — but voluntary or so-called ‘lifestyle’ part-time without caregiving or training responsibilities would no longer be protected by law.
- Remove the general right to request part-time work.
- Allow part-time only for specific reasons such as child care, care for relatives, or training.
- Leave decisions about other part-time arrangements to employers and collective agreements.
Who supports the change
The MIT and its leadership, notably Gitta Connemann, support the change and link it to the country’s labour market pressures. Their core argument is that in the face of a dramatic shortage of skilled workers, anyone who can work more should be encouraged or required to do so. Supporters frame the move as a necessary adjustment to improve overall workforce availability and productivity.
3. Current law and statistics
Under the existing regulations, employees who have worked for a company for at least six months and where the employer has more than 15 employees generally have the right to request a change to part-time work, provided there are no compelling operational reasons to refuse. Current part-time participation stands at about 29% overall: roughly 49% of women and 12% of men work part-time.
| Aspect | Current situation |
|---|---|
| Eligibility for part-time request | After six months’ employment in companies with more than 15 employees (unless operational reasons apply) |
| Overall part-time rate | 29% |
| Part-time rate for women | 49% |
| Part-time rate for men | 12% |
| Notes | Proposal would narrow eligibility to special reasons like child care, caregiving, or training |
4. Arguments for and against
Arguments in favor
- Addressing labour shortages: freeing up hours could increase available labour supply in sectors with staff shortages.
- Fairness concerns: proponents argue the social safety net should not subsidise voluntary lifestyle part-time when it reduces overall labour supply.
- Incentive for full-time work: the change could encourage higher overall working hours and boost productivity.
Arguments against
- Reduces employee choice: critics warn the change would limit personal freedom and the ability to balance work and life.
- Disproportionate impact on women: because women make up a large share of part-time workers, the change could worsen gender inequalities in the labour market.
- Better alternatives exist: opponents suggest improving childcare, elder care and flexible working models rather than restricting legal rights.
5. Political reactions and intra-party debate
Inside the CDU the proposal has met mixed reactions. The party’s economic wing emphasises the need to respond to the skills shortage, while the social wing warns against removing workers’ choice. CDU social wing leader Dennis Radtke criticised the move as putting the cart before the horse and advocated strengthening childcare and care infrastructure instead, so families retain real freedom to decide their working hours.
Comments from national leaders
Other senior figures have weighed in on the wider theme of work ethic and labour supply. Observations about national willingness to work have framed parts of the discussion and contributed to public debate on how to balance social support with expectations of labour market participation.
6. Potential impacts and next steps
If the proposal is adopted at the CDU federal party conference, it could lead to changes in party policy and push for legislative adjustments. The practical effects would depend on how any new rules are worded and implemented, and how social partners, employers and lawmakers respond.
- Short term: intensified debate within the CDU and among social partners; possible legislative proposals from aligned policymakers.
- Medium term: employers and unions may negotiate new collective arrangements or pressure for clearer definitions of allowable part-time reasons.
- Long term: changes could affect gender equality, labour supply in certain sectors, and family-life choices unless complemented by improved childcare and care services.
- Survey evidence: government-area research indicates many mothers would like to work more if flexible models and care options are improved, suggesting policy measures on childcare could change part-time patterns without restricting rights.
7. Practical considerations for workers and employers
Workers and employers should prepare for an uncertain period of discussion. Regardless of legal changes, clear communication, flexible scheduling pilots, and targeted support for employees with care responsibilities can help manage transitions and maintain workforce motivation.
- For workers: monitor legal developments, review contractual rights, and consider collective voice through works councils or unions.
- For employers: assess staffing needs, explore flexible working patterns that meet operational demands and staff preferences, and engage in dialogue with employees.
- For policymakers: consider complementary measures such as expanded childcare and care services to preserve choice while addressing labour shortages.
8. Conclusion
The MIT proposal to limit the right to part-time work has reopened a wide-ranging debate about labour market policy, workers’ rights and family choice. The discussion highlights tensions between addressing a persistent skills shortage and protecting individual freedom to balance work and life. The outcome will depend on internal party votes, public debate, and whether alternative measures—especially in childcare and elder care—are advanced alongside any legal changes.
