In Luxembourg, the four-day week being discussed in relation to working time would consist of four ten-hour days. It would therefore spread working hours over fewer days, without reducing the working week to 32 hours. And access to this arrangement could depend on where people work: the Union of Luxembourg Enterprises (UEL) fears that employees of small businesses could be left out if collective agreements became the only way in.
Four days, but still forty hours
The arrangement currently being discussed by the Standing Committee on Labour and Employment (CPTE) consists of four ten-hour days. It concentrates working hours into four days; it is not a reduced-hours week. For an employee, the difference is tangible: one fewer working day does not necessarily mean fewer hours, and the days in question would be longer.
The distinction also matters for understanding the debate on flexibility. The CPTE is examining several options, not just this way of organising the week: more breaks could be allowed during the day, as could extended periods of work in the event of an emergency or accident. These are proposals under discussion, not general rights that have already been introduced.
The current framework remains the benchmark
The Labour and Mines Inspectorate (ITM) points out that working time is in principle limited to eight hours a day and forty hours a week. Shorter hours may be provided for by individual or collective agreement. A ten-hour day therefore exceeds the daily limit indicated by the ITM: the arrangement being discussed assumes that the framework governing working time will be clarified or adjusted. Discussion at the CPTE does not, in itself, mean that this arrangement is already authorised for everyone.
For someone in a job, the number of days alone is therefore not enough to determine what would change. It would be necessary to know the rules governing working hours, the agreements required and the safeguards applying to the employees concerned. The information announced does not allow the four-day week to be treated as an arrangement currently available in all businesses.
The question of small businesses
The UEL highlights an issue of access. According to the employers’ organisation, businesses with 10 to 49 employees are rarely covered by collective agreements, citing STATEC data. If a collective agreement became the only way to introduce these arrangements, employees in these businesses might not be able to benefit from them through this route.
This is the UEL’s position on a scenario under discussion, not a count of employees already excluded from a scheme in force. The issue raised concerns the conditions of access: a measure may in principle be available, but difficult to implement in businesses that do not have the required collective agreement.
The organisation proposes a so-called “de minimis” rule to allow small businesses to use these arrangements through local dialogue. It says employers’ organisations are willing to examine safeguards, including a right for the social partners to have a say. The arrangements and safeguards remain to be discussed at the CPTE.
What still needs to be clarified for employees
To assess the scope of any agreement, three things will need to be distinguished: the arrangements ultimately adopted, the businesses and employees that could access them, and the safeguards accompanying the longer working days. How working hours are organised, the role of collective agreements and the conditions for applying the arrangements in small businesses will be decisive.
At this stage, the debate is therefore less about an agreed rollout than about possible ways to make work organisation more flexible. For employees, the practical question is twofold: would four days indeed mean four ten-hour days, and what agreement would allow their business to offer them? The answers will depend on the decisions made as part of the ongoing discussions.
References
- L’essentiel, on the proposals under discussion and the UEL’s position
- Labour and Mines Inspectorate, daily and weekly working hours
Office buildings in Hollerich. Illustrative photo.
