Overview: What the CDU Economic Wing is Proposing
In 2026 the Mittelstands- und Wirtschaftsunion (MIT), the economic wing of the CDU, announced a motion titled ‘No legal claim to lifestyle part-time’ to be tabled at the federal party conference (Bundesparteitag) at the end of February. The proposal aims to remove the general legal right to part-time work that currently exists for employees after six months of employment in companies with more than 15 workers, unless there are operational reasons against it.
The MIT frames this change as a response to a dramatic shortage of skilled workers and argues it would discourage voluntary, so-called ‘lifestyle part-time’ while encouraging more hours where possible. The debate touches on key issues such as work-life balance, gendered employment patterns, labor law, and the role of social benefits in supporting people in exceptional circumstances.
Details of the Proposal
Under current German law many employees can request and obtain part-time work after meeting tenure and company-size requirements. The MIT proposal would restrict that automatic right. Part-time would remain an option only for particular, justified reasons rather than a general entitlement.
Specific changes being pushed
- End the broad legal claim to reduce working hours for lifestyle reasons.
- Allow part-time work primarily for defined circumstances such as childcare, caring for relatives, or certified further education.
- Require stronger justification from employees seeking reduced hours to prevent voluntary reductions that the MIT sees as undermining the labor supply.
The aim is to channel part-time arrangements toward those with objective needs, and to increase the available labor time in businesses coping with shortages of skilled personnel.
Arguments from Supporters (MIT and CDU Economic Wing)
Supporters led by MIT chair Gitta Connemann stress that higher labour supply is necessary to address persistent shortages. Their messaging combines economic and social arguments, saying that increased work hours can protect social security systems and reduce the risk of poverty in old age.
Key points from proponents
- ‘Who can work more, should work more’ — a claim used to justify encouraging longer working hours.
- Part-time should be reserved for exceptional life needs: childcare, eldercare or vocational training.
- Full-time workers currently subsidize reduced contributions from part-time colleagues, which may increase pension risk and shift burdens within the social system.
Proponents also point to past measures aimed at increasing working hours, such as a tax-free top-up incentive for people increasing hours, arguing those policies did not go far enough to reverse the trend toward high part-time rates.
Criticisms and Concerns
The proposal has drawn criticism both within and outside the CDU. Opponents characterise it as an attack on work-life balance and personal freedom, warning it could penalise carers, students, and people managing health constraints.
Main objections raised
- Threat to work-life balance and individual choice over working hours.
- Disproportionate impact on women, who make up a large share of part-time workers due to childcare and care responsibilities.
- Risk of forcing people into unsuitable full-time roles, potentially increasing stress, burnout, or exit from the labour market.
- Arguments that the policy misunderstands underlying causes of part-time work, such as lack of affordable childcare or inflexible full-time roles.
Critics also argue that tackling the skilled labour shortage requires broader measures — better training, targeted immigration, childcare expansion, and flexible full-time models — rather than simply removing a legal right to part-time work.
Who Would Be Affected?
Part-time work is common: the current part-time rate exceeds 40 percent, a marked shift from the 1990s when more than 80 percent of jobs were full-time. Women are especially affected — about one in two working women are in part-time jobs. Many of those employees are balancing care responsibilities and would be directly impacted by tighter rules.
Practical consequences for workers
- Workers with care or health-related needs could face reduced options if part-time is limited to narrowly defined categories.
- Some people who want more hours already report inability to find them — about ten percent more hours are desired by a share of part-time workers but are not available.
- Possible shift of costs: if fewer part-time roles are available, some may leave the labor market entirely, worsening staffing levels and reducing household incomes.
Context and Historical Measures
The current legal framework allows employees to request part-time after six months of employment in companies with more than 15 employees, unless operational reasons prevent it. This framework helped produce a substantial part-time sector over recent decades.
Earlier policies aimed at increasing hours
Previous government incentives targeted more working hours, for example through a tax-free top-up bonus for increasing hours (up to 4,500 euros tax-free), but the MIT considers such measures insufficient to reverse long-term trends toward part-time employment.
The debate unfolds against a backdrop of economic pressures: despite record part-time employment, companies continue to seek workers to fill vacancies — the so-called skilled labour shortage (Fachkräftemangel) that the MIT cites as primary motivation for change.
What Happens Next — Political Process and Possible Outcomes
The MIT plans to present its motion at the CDU federal party conference at the end of February 2026. If adopted by the party, the proposal could influence future legislative initiatives or government policy, depending on coalition dynamics and wider public debate.
Potential short- and long-term consequences
- Short term: heated public debate, amendments to the party’s platform, and pushback from social partners and women’s advocacy groups.
- Medium term: attempts to translate party policy into legislative proposals, possibly sparking parliamentary debate and coalition negotiations.
- Long term: if implemented, structural changes in working patterns, potential labour market shifts, and impacts on social insurance contributions and retirement security.
Stakeholders including employers, trade unions, advocacy groups and regional governments would likely be drawn into consultations about how to balance labour supply needs with workers’ rights and social protections.
Conclusion
The MIT’s proposal to abolish the general legal right to part-time work would mark a major shift in German labour policy. Proponents cast the change as necessary to tackle the skilled labour shortage and to protect social security systems; opponents warn it would damage work-life balance and disproportionately affect women and carers. The debate in 2026 will be about more than working hours — it will be about how society balances individual choice, family responsibilities, economic needs and the design of social protections.
As the motion moves through party and possibly parliamentary stages, key questions will include how narrowly exemptions for part-time would be defined, what complementary measures (childcare, training, flexible full-time options) are offered, and how any change could be implemented without unintended negative effects for vulnerable workers.
