Entrepreneur Andreas Stihl, head of the globally known chainsaw manufacturer, publicly called for the abolition of Germany's 35‑hour work week in a statement released on 9 May 2024. Stihl argued that the fixed weekly limit hampers flexibility for companies facing rapid technological change and international competition. He suggested that a more adaptable schedule could help firms adjust production cycles, invest in automation, and retain skilled staff without resorting to layoffs.
The proposal arrives as Germany debates labour market reforms amid slowing growth and rising energy costs. While Stihl framed the change as a business‑driven necessity, trade unions such as IG Metall warned that weakening the 35‑hour standard could erode hard‑won worker protections and increase pressure on wages.
Economic and Market Impact
Stihl’s call reflects concerns shared by some medium‑sized manufacturers that the current work‑time regulation limits overtime flexibility and raises labour costs relative to competitors in Eastern Europe and the United States. Analysts note that a shift toward a more fluid schedule could lower unit labour costs and improve capacity utilisation, potentially boosting export‑oriented sectors. However, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs has not indicated an immediate policy shift, and the impact on the broader economy remains speculative.
Political and Community Impact
The proposal has reignited debate within the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Union, both of which have historically supported the 35‑hour week as a pillar of the German social model. IG Metall and other unions have organised statements emphasizing the risk of longer working hours without proportional wage increases. Local chambers of commerce in Baden‑Württemberg expressed cautious interest, noting that any reform would need clear safeguards for employee health.
What Happens Next
No legislative timetable has been set. The government is expected to commission a study on work‑time flexibility later this year, and IG Metall plans to raise the issue at its next collective‑bargaining round in early 2025. Stakeholders will watch for any formal proposals from the Ministry of Labour, which could shape the next phase of the debate.
Potential Benefits / Supporting Perspective
Potential Benefits of Ending the 35‑Hour Week
Supporters of Stihl’s proposal argue that eliminating the statutory 35‑hour limit could unlock several economic advantages for German firms. First, greater scheduling flexibility would allow companies to align labour input with fluctuating demand, reducing overtime premiums and idle capacity. This could be especially valuable for export‑driven manufacturers that compete with lower‑cost producers in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Second, a more adaptable work‑time framework may encourage investment in advanced automation and digital tools, as firms would have clearer cost forecasts for labour. By lowering the marginal cost of additional production hours, firms could achieve higher output without proportionally increasing payroll expenses, potentially strengthening Germany’s position in high‑tech markets.
Third, proponents claim that flexible hours could improve employee satisfaction for workers who prefer variable schedules over a rigid weekly cap. Options such as compressed work weeks or remote‑work days might attract younger talent and reduce turnover, addressing demographic challenges in the German labour market.
Finally, the reform could stimulate a broader debate on modernising labour law, prompting policymakers to consider complementary measures such as stronger health‑safety standards and wage guarantees that protect workers while granting firms the needed agility.
Potential Drawbacks / Critical Perspective
Potential Drawbacks of Abolishing the 35‑Hour Week
Critics warn that removing the 35‑hour ceiling could undermine hard‑won worker protections and exacerbate wage pressure across Germany. Without a statutory cap, employers might extend regular hours while keeping pay rates unchanged, effectively increasing the average weekly workload without corresponding salary growth. This risk is highlighted by IG Metall, which stresses that the 35‑hour rule helped preserve a balance between work intensity and leisure, contributing to Germany’s high quality‑of‑life rankings.
A second concern is the potential rise in occupational stress and health‑related costs. Studies from the European Working Conditions Survey link longer standard hours to higher incidences of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders. If firms adopt longer schedules as the new norm, public‑health expenses could rise, offsetting any productivity gains.
Third, the proposal could widen inequality between sectors. While high‑skill firms might offer premium pay for extra hours, low‑skill manufacturers could simply extend shifts without additional compensation, widening the gap between well‑paid and lower‑paid workers. Trade unions fear that such a shift would weaken collective‑bargaining power and erode the solidarity model that has underpinned German industrial relations.
Finally, political backlash is likely. The Social Democratic Party and the Greens have built electoral platforms around protecting workers’ rights. Any move perceived as rolling back the 35‑hour standard could trigger protests, strikes, and a loss of public trust in the government’s commitment to social welfare.