Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Working time, the efficiency of the economy and the well-being of workers (including in the context of digital change and work automation): a legal and comparative analysis of the situation in EU Member States (exploratory opinion at the request of the Polish presidency)
Date: 2025-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: labour law, legal working time, mental health, occupational safety, reduction of working time, rest period, shorter working week, work-life balance








C_202502960EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2960


16.6.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

Working time, the efficiency of the economy and the well-being of workers (including in the context of digital change and work automation): a legal and comparative analysis of the situation in EU Member States


(exploratory opinion at the request of the Polish presidency)

(C/2025/2960)


Rapporteur: 
Maria del Carmen BARRERA CHAMORRO






Advisor


Cristóbal MOLINA NAVARRETE (to the rapporteur, Group II)
Anna KWIATKIEWICZ (to Group I)




Request from the Polish Presidency of the Council


13.11.2024




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


11.3.2025




Adopted at plenary session


26.3.2025




Plenary session No


595




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


146/89/4




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC considers that working time is one of the aspects of work with the greatest impact on people’s quality of life (well-being) and is key to the efficient organisation of economic activity in companies. Appropriate working-time arrangements can make enterprises more sustainable and improve their productivity. This view is shared by the social partners. The EESC considers the definition of working time reduction as working fewer hours per reference period with the same salary levels, to clearly differentiate between shorter working days in the form of part-time work and compressed working days (that is, the same number of hours worked in fewer days, for example, 4 days of 10 hours).












1.2.


The EESC notes that technological innovations resulting from the digitalisation of the economy and social life create numerous challenges and opportunities for economic growth and improved employee well-being. In this respect, experiments in reducing working time agreed between social partners at a company level on a voluntary basis can improve the physical and mental well-being of workers.












1.3.


The EESC welcomes the Commission’s interpretative communication on Directive 2003/88/EC. The purpose of this instrument is twofold. Firstly, to contribute to the effective implementation, application and enforcement of existing Community legislation. Secondly, to improve legal certainty for companies as regards the scope of their working-time obligations and the scope for flexible management.












1.4.


Although, according to Eurostat data, the average European working week is 37,1 hours, the EESC notes that there are major differences between countries and sectors of activity. Available scientific evidence based on pilot projects shows that there may be a positive relationship between a shorter working week and productivity: the shorter the average working week, the higher the productivity. In this context, sector-specific experiments and pilot projects on the relationship between a reduced working week and productivity should be further explored. The diverse experiments of reduced working time in the various countries produce different effects and require different solutions. In general, these experiments have been assessed as very positive in terms of improving workers’ well-being and increasing productivity, although there are considerable differences between sectors, companies and countries.












1.5.


The EESC recognises that the sectoral and company-based nature of most of these experiences has allowed such practices to be promoted through collective bargaining. The EESC considers that social partners are the key actors in promoting measures to ensure that the highest number of sectors and companies adopt arrangements they deem appropriate. However, it should be borne in mind that not in all countries, nor in all sectors, do the social partners have the same capacity to reach such agreements. The EESC believes that the EU institutions and Member States should be encouraged to create favourable conditions in the form of incentives or legislation, for sectors and/or companies wishing to test or adopt such arrangements. That in no case should be understood as a call for a new increase in part-time work, especially unwanted part-time work, which has a negative effect on wages and pensions.












1.6.


The EESC encourages the introduction of flexible forms of working-time organisation to take into account the situation of different vulnerable groups, with guarantees of decent work that may include greater self-determination. Scientific research shows that working-time management that takes into account the needs of workers at different stages of life facilitates work-life balance. Among other advantages, these models of flexible working-time management allow other needs to be addressed, such as vocational (re)training or a more gradual transition to retirement for workers who might otherwise leave the labour market altogether. The impact on wages and pension entitlements needs to be carefully monitored.












1.7.


The EESC notes that a majority of companies organise working time according to the EU and national legislation in place, including derogations. Any lack of compliance with the applicable rules should be eliminated. Social partners at all levels have an important role to play to discuss flexible arrangements, including related to reduction of working time. The EESC believes that social partners need active encouragement and support, through all necessary means, in order to increase the health, work-life balance and efficiency benefits of shorter and/or more flexible working hours.












1.8.


Firmly convinced of the added value of introducing new models of flexible work organisation agreed by social partners, including the four-day working week and/or working-time reduction, the EESC also recommends promoting them to support work-life balance. Flexible working-time arrangements strike a balance between employers’ interest in increasing productivity and workers’ interest in improving their work-life balance and the feeling of having an influence on their working time arrangements. They are key to attracting and retaining talent in companies.












1.9.


The EESC highlights among the pilot projects on working-time reduction the Eurofound one: ‘Working-time reduction with a focus on the four-day week’, which states in its first conclusions: ‘Reduced working time improves productivity, enhances mental health and reduces stress, and is key to a sustainable balance in the current context of digital transformation. It also contributes to preventing work-related illnesses and strengthening the general well-being of working people’. In this regard, the EESC highlights the positive effects of reduced working time on society, such as demographic renewal, gender equality, a reduced burden on the healthcare system and potentially keeping workers in the world of work for longer, thus creating a positive environment conducive of creativity and innovation. A good social environment not only benefits the state but also companies and workers.












1.10.


The EESC encourages the EU institutions, national governments and social partners to accelerate the recognition of digital disconnection as a right for all EU workers. According to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2024, C-531/23, Loredas (1)), digital disconnection policies and time recording systems in organisations are essential safeguards to ensure the effectiveness of working-time rules, including, where appropriate, rules on the reduction of working time.




2.   Background









2.1.


The EESC believes that working time is an aspect of work that has a very significant impact on people’s quality of life. It is also key to the efficient organisation of companies’ economic activity, according to various ILO studies (2). In European Union law, Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) (concerning certain aspects of working-time organisation to be developed and improved through collective bargaining) stands out, with extensive and protective European Court of Justice case law (4).












2.2.


The EESC points out that the proper organisation of working time has different dimensions that contribute to this regulatory and management complexity and is therefore affected by other, more recent directives, in addition to the framework directive on health and safety at work (Directive 89/391/EEC (5)). This is the case, as regards the promotion of a proper work-life balance through leave and flexible working arrangements, with Directive (EU) 2019/1158 (6) of 20 June; as regards uncertain working-time patterns, it is also the case with Directive (EU) 2019/1152 (7) of 20 June on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU.












2.3.


The EESC notes that on 24 March 2023 the European Commission published an updated version of the Commission report on the implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (COM(2023) 72 final) (8). The report points out that, in general terms, most Member States are complying with the minimum requirements of the directive, and some are even improving on them. The EESC also welcomes the Commission’s interpretative communication on Directive 2003/88/EC (9).












2.4.


The EESC considers it appropriate to point out that Article 2.1 of the European Social Charter provides for a legal obligation on the European States that have ratified it ‘to provide for reasonable daily and weekly working hours, the working week to be progressively reduced to the extent that the increase of productivity and other relevant factors permit;’.












2.5.


The EESC notes that the last two decades of the 20th century were characterised by discussions on striking a work-life balance, including appropriate working-time arrangements and in some Member States, job sharing (e.g. Loi Aubry, France). At the beginning of the 21st century, however, Member States introduced regulatory changes to allow for both increases and decreases in working time (10). Working time has also been a subject of collective bargaining, often with a view to embracing digitalisation and managing it in a way that is beneficial for workers and employers. Appropriate modalities for disconnecting have also been discussed. All this has gradually led to the issues of well-being and work-life balance becoming a central concern of working-time policies, including in collective bargaining in the various European countries, in order to promote the interests of both companies and employees.












2.6.


The EESC notes that since 2015 there has been an increase in working-time reduction initiatives in various countries and in different ways (e.g. 4 Day Week Global (11)). As a result, according to Eurostat data (12), the average European working week is 37,1 hours, although there is a large difference between countries and sectors of activity as shown by Eurofound studies (13).












2.7.


Against a backdrop of profound technological and organisational change, in particular due to intense digitalisation, as well as widespread debate across Europe and beyond on the reduction of working time, Poland has asked the EESC for an exploratory opinion on working time, economic efficiency and workers’ well-being. The EESC acknowledges the fact that many EU Member States are engaged in a debate on working-time reform (e.g. Spain) (14).












2.8.


The EESC has already suggested that in relation to teleworking, and in accordance with European and national legislation on telework and collective bargaining agreements at national, regional, sectoral and company level, companies should use appropriate mechanisms to measure normal working hours and overtime (EESC opinion on the Challenges of Teleworking: organisation of working time, work life balance and the right to disconnect (15)). It has also expressed the need for a balance between work and family life in the road transport sector, relating to both the passenger and goods transport sectors (16).












2.9.


The EESC takes note of the scientific evidence provided by the ILO and the WHO, which shows that long working hours, exceeding 55 hours a week, significantly increase the risk of physical accidents at work, as well as cerebrovascular accidents and coronary heart disease. It is also significantly linked to increasing mental health problems (17). However, when working hours and breaks are of appropriate length and are organised well, they act as protective factors for well-being by reducing adverse effects on health and contributing to improved performance (18).












2.10.


The EESC recalls that the UN and the 2030 Agenda link proper organisation of working time to the SDGs: in particular Goal 5, target 5.4 (introduce services, infrastructure and policies (e.g. working-time limits) to provide more time for both women and men to contribute more equally to unpaid care and domestic work); and Goal 8, target 8.8 (protect labour rights and promote a safe and secure working environment for all workers).




3.   General comments









3.1.


The EESC notes that Eurostat data (19), combined with data from a study on productivity (20) show an inverse relationship between the number of hours worked and productivity: countries with shorter average working hours, taking into account full time and part-time together, have higher productivity, while countries with longer average working hours have lower productivity, according to 2023 data. The EESC is convinced that appropriate regulation of the organisation and limits of working time is a necessary measure to facilitate the reconciliation of work, family and personal life and to protect the physical and mental health of workers, without harming productivity, but, rather, improving it. Hence the win-win approach of appropriate working time and working-time organisation, as reflected in Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 2.1 of the European Revised Social Charter.












3.2.


Over the last two decades, the regulation and management of working time has been affected by new forms of work organisation and employment and by the impact of technological innovation (e.g. mobile working, on-demand working, platform working, teleworking, flexible working, smart working, more self-employment, several contracts for one person, etc.).












3.3.


The EESC notes that these changes are caused and/or accelerated by digitalisation in the economy. Flexible working time and digitalisation, if not properly managed, can blur the distinction between work and rest and may result in greater fragmentation of work, both in terms of place and time. Technology creates new possibilities to control working time, for the benefit of employers and workers.












3.4.


The world of work has also been profoundly affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic, which brought home-based telework combined with on-site presence, so that workers are increasingly doing ‘hybrid work’, as illustrated by Eurofound studies on this subject (21). The spread of teleworking took place during the pandemic and although its use has since significantly declined in relation to the COVID-19 crisis, it has not disappeared and continues to be an option for work organisation.












3.5.


Even more recently, the effects of anthropogenic climate change have highlighted new challenges for the organisation of working time, including the need to ensure the health and safety of workers and that work is able to be organised in a safe and healthy way. The great Dana tragedy in Spain and the Spanish government’s regulations highlight this impact. Although it is true that other countries have experienced tragic events linked to climate emergencies (droughts, floods), the Spanish case is particularly significant both because of the number of victims (226 people killed, thousands affected) and the solution adopted, based on major legislative changes (e.g. Royal Decree-Law 7/2024 of 11 November (22)). In addition, increasing heatwaves caused 47 000 deaths in Europe in 2023 (the hottest year on record worldwide, and the second hottest in Europe) according to a study published in Nature Medicine (23).












3.6.


The EESC warns of the risk posed by ‘short-term’ visions: although more employees working longer hours may initially help to increase a company’s output and improve their financial situation, in the medium term it tends to decrease, while risks to workers’ health increase (24). Scientific studies provide strong reasons for the positive effects of appropriate working-time limits not only for workers but also for third parties (patients and clients), such as improved quality of services provided. Employers benefit from a more efficient use of resources and avoid the risk of losing customers due to reduced quality of service, production losses and waste associated with overworked staff, or even the risk of an increased number of accidents at work (25).












3.7.


The EESC notes that many companies have good working-time policies, but there are also worrying practices. It notes that poorly organised working time can result not only in health problems for workers, but also loss of productivity for companies. According to studies, inadequate working time can place companies in breach of applicable laws and expose them to operational risks associated with excessive working hours. This in turn can lead to people leaving companies, reduced productivity and higher rates of absenteeism and sickness. In addition, there is significant consequent damage to a business’s reputation when problems are made public.












3.8.


The EESC welcomes the open debate and the pilot experiments being carried out in all Member States (26) to test new models for reducing and/or reorganising working time. The Eurofound publications show different existing arrangements for working-time reduction which are giving new impetus for discussing the reduction and reorganisation of working time. They include the following patterns: working 6 days per week, 5 hours per day and the more widespread 4 days per week, 8 or 9 hours per day on average (‘compressed work week’). It is also important to note that Eurofound’s key findings indicate that while the reduction of working hours is perceived in literature as a positive factor in terms of worker well-being and health, the effects on employment, productivity, and the environment are more uncertain (27).












3.9.


The EESC notes that evaluations (28) of pilot projects involving a four-day working week with reduced working hours and maintained wages have had a very wide geographical spread (North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) in certain companies, but they remain fragmented. Similarly, the sectors involved are much more diverse, although IT and business services are represented more than the industrial sector. The sectoral and enterprise-based nature of most of these pilot projects has allowed for discussions on the feasibility of these solutions for companies/sectors through collective bargaining. However, the EESC would encourage the EU institutions and Member States to reflect on how working-time reduction can be supported at national level to benefit workers and employers, using incentives or legislation to facilitate that as many sectors and companies as possible try out these arrangements, whenever appropriate.












3.10.


The EESC emphasises the importance of including the people with the greatest needs in pilot projects, such as people with disabilities. Without taking a position on the different pilot projects, the EESC notes that companies may face increased costs. The EESC highlights the following practical developments in working-time reduction:






—


The German government, with productivity above the EU average, promoted an experimental programme to promote the 100-80-100 model (100 % salary, 80 % working hours and 100 % performance) audited by the organisation 4 Day Week Global (29), with the result that productivity was maintained and even slightly increased. 73 % of the 41 companies that participated in the experiment have adopted the model definitively and do not plan to return to the previous model.










—


In Ireland, there was a pilot programme that promoted a four-day week in the participating companies in 2023. Results of this pilot project in 2024 confirmed improvements in gender equality, improved mental health – a 35 % reduction in work-related stress and anxiety – and a positive impact on pollution reduction.










—


Iceland has expanded a four-day work week pilot programme from 1 % of the population to more than 86 % of the population.










—


In November 2022, the Portuguese government promoted a pilot project entitled ‘Four-day working week’ to apply for six months, during which private sector companies could reduce working hours to 32, 34 or 36 hours per week.
















3.11.


The EESC also notes that in Greece the possibility of working a sixth day a week has been introduced by law, effective from 1 July 2024 (Law 5053/2023, Articles 25 and 26). This rule was introduced to combat undeclared work, as well as to increase the employees’ salaries (on the 6th day, salaries are increased by 40 %). This mainly concerns companies that operate five days a week, 24 hours a day, with a rotating shift system. This regulation is favoured by employers and opposed by trade unions.












3.12.


The EESC points out that the average working week in Greece is 39,8 hours, the longest in the EU, followed by Poland and Cyprus. The Netherlands has the shortest working week, with 32,2 hours per week in the main job (30).












3.13.


The EESC notes that Eurostat data (31), combined with data from a study on productivity (32), show an inverse relationship between the number of hours worked and productivity: countries with shorter average working hours, taking into account full time and part-time together, have higher productivity, while countries with longer average working hours have lower productivity, according to 2023 data (33).




4.   Specific comments









4.1.


The EESC notes that flexible forms of working time organisation – such as shorter working weeks, staggered working-time arrangements, annualised working hours, flexitime, on-call duty and availability work – present both new opportunities and challenges. In this context, the EESC welcomes the CJEU case law that requires working-time arrangements to comply not only with Directive 2023/88/EC, but also with the framework directive on health and safety, in order to prevent the risks of stress at work, even if such on-call time does not qualify as actual work. However, the EESC considers it more appropriate to address these issues through social dialogue and collective bargaining at the appropriate levels.












4.2.


It notes that with the working-time experiments of 30 hours per week over 6 days, or 32 hours per week over 4 days, the main objective is a better balance between the well-being of employees and increasing the efficiency of companies; many such company-based arrangements for reducing working time are intended to attract skilled labour (34).












4.3.


The EESC reaffirms that practical experience has shown that well-designed working-time arrangements, including reduction of working time, if agreed at the appropriate level, can be mutually beneficial for both workers and employers, as they can enable workers to obtain a better balance between paid work and their personal lives, without harming productivity. In this respect, while it is true that reduced working time has the best impact on work-life balance, the organisation of working time in a flexible but predictable way, taking into account workers’ needs, also has a positive impact on the relationship between work and personal life, according to Eurofound (35).












4.4.


In addition, appropriate working-time arrangements can make companies more sustainable and improve their productivity. This view is shared by employers’ organisations, which are in favour of relying on collective bargaining at the appropriate level, and by trade unions, which additionally call for greater involvement of public policy and regulation to strengthen the power of collective bargaining in reducing and reorganising working time. The EESC notes that evaluations of the pilot projects to date with these new national legal and promotional frameworks confirm the positive effects on people’s physical and mental health and on business efficiency.












4.5.


The EESC points out that working between 35 and 40 hours/week significantly decreases the risk of coronary heart disease (40 %) and stroke (19 %) compared to working over 55 hours/week (36). The EESC believes that the EU (within the framework of its competences) and the Member States (through proper social dialogue) must promote the right conditions of all types – including legal, economic, organisational and technical conditions – to get people talking about and to implement the various forms of flexible working time, including reduced working time.












4.6.


The EESC believes that any discussions on working-time arrangements should include the social partners. Such involvement also allows for responses that are better tailored to each sector and company, and therefore more flexible and efficient. It should be borne in mind that these solutions for reducing and reorganising working time are highly favoured by workers, who are aware of their benefits. If properly designed they are also supported by employers, as they contribute to the company’s productivity and effective human resource management.












4.7.


The EESC takes note of experiences showing how the four-day working week can act as a lever to drive other changes within organisations, encouraging companies to optimise their processes to make them more efficient and productive.












4.8.


The EESC is firmly convinced of the added value of designing and testing different models of shaping working time, including a four-day working week, in cases agreed by the social partners. In view of the current significant labour shortage, the shrinking working-age population and the increasing search for a work-life balance, offering flexible working time becomes an important factor that can help to attract talent.






Brussels, 26 March 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Olivier RÖPKE
               





(1)  
            Judgement of the Court in Case C-531/23 [Loredas].

(2)  ILO, 
Working time and the future of work
, 2018.

(3)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/88/oj).

(4)  Eurofound, 
Rest breaks from work – Overview of regulations, research and practice
, 2019.

(5)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1989/391/oj).

(6)  Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU (OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 79, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1158/oj).

(7)  Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 105, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1152/oj).

(8)  
            COM/2023/72 final.

(9)  
            Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission Interpretative Communication on Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ C 143, 26.4.2023, p. 8).

(10)  Eurofound, 
Working time reduction with a focus on the four – day week: Literature review
, Introduction, page 1, 2024.

(11)  Business Insider, ‘
            
Why the four-day workweek works

            ’, 2023.

(12)  Eurostat, 
Average number of usual weekly hours of work in main job, by sex, age, professional status, full-time/part-time and economic activity
.

(13)  Eurofound, 
Working time in 2021–2022
, 2023.

(14)  See related links on the web page of this opinion.

(15)  
            
OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 1.

(16)  EESC opinion on Driving and rest time periods, working time and posting of workers (
OJ C 197, 8.6.2018, p. 45).

(17)  Eurofound, 
Psychosocial risks to workers’ well-being – Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic
, chapter 5, 2023.

(18)  Eurofound, 
Working time reduction with a focus on the four-day week: Literature review
, 2024.

(19)  Eurostat, 
Actual and usual hours of work
, 2024.

(20)  Fundación BBVA, IVIE, 
Los diez países de la UE-27 con mejores cifras de productividad por hora trabajada disponen de una comisión para impulsar su mejora
, 2024.

(21)  Eurofound, 
The rise in telework - Impact on working conditions and regulations
, page 71, 2022, updated in 2023.

(22)  See link: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?lang=en&id=BOE-A-2024-23422&tn=1&p=.

(23)  Nature Medicine, 

                  ‘Heat-related mortality in Europe during 2023 and the role of adaptation in protecting health


               ’
            , 2024.

(24)  Eurofound, 
Overtime in Europe - Regulation and practice
, 2022.

(25)  Eurofound, 
Opting out of the European Working Time Directive
, 2015.

(26)  See related links on the web page of this opinion.

(27)  Eurofound, 
Working time reduction with a focus on the four-day week: Literature review
, 2024.

(28)  Eurofound, 
Working time reduction with a focus on the four-day week: Literature review
, 2024.

(29)  
            4 Day Week Global: https://www.4dayweek.com/.

(30)  Eurostat, ’How many hours per week do Europeans work?', 2024.

(31)  Eurostat, 
Actual and usual hours of work
, 2024.

(32)  Fundación BBVA, IVIE, 
Los diez países de la UE-27 con mejores cifras de productividad por hora trabajada disponen de una comisión para impulsar su mejora
, 2024.

(33)  Fundación BBVA, IVIE, 
Los diez países de la UE-27 con mejores cifras de productividad por hora trabajada disponen de una comisión para impulsar su mejora
, 2024.

(34)  Eurofound, 
Working time reduction with a focus on the four-day week: Literature review
, page 55-56, 2024 and Japan Labor Issues, vol.3, no.16, July 2019, 
Current State of Working Hours and Overwork in Japan: Part I: How Has It Changed Over the Years?
.

(35)  Eurofound, 
Striking a balance - Reconciling work and life in the EU
, 2018.

(36)  WHO and ILO, 
Long working hours increasing deaths from heart disease and stroke
, 2021.




ANNEX I
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions (Rule 75(3) of the Rules of Procedure):
AMENDMENT 1

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Point 3.5


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




Even more recently, the effects of anthropogenic climate change have highlighted new challenges for the organisation of working time, including the need to ensure the health and safety of workers and that work is able to be organised in a safe and healthy way. The great Dana tragedy in Spain and the Spanish government’s regulations highlight this impact. Although it is true that other countries have experienced tragic events linked to climate emergencies (droughts, floods), the Spanish case is particularly significant both because of the number of victims (226 people killed, thousands affected) and the solution adopted, based on major legislative changes (e.g. Royal Decree-Law 7/2024 of 11 November[1]). In addition, increasing heatwaves caused 47 000  deaths in Europe in 2023 (the hottest year on record worldwide, and the second hottest in Europe) 
according to a study published in Nature Medicine
[2].


Even more recently, the effects of anthropogenic climate change have highlighted new challenges for the organisation of working time, including the need to ensure the health and safety of workers and that work is able to be organised in a safe and healthy way. The great Dana tragedy in Spain and the Spanish government’s regulations highlight this impact. Although it is true that other countries have experienced tragic events linked to climate emergencies (droughts, floods), the Spanish case is particularly significant both because of the number of victims (226 people killed, thousands affected) and the solution adopted, based on major legislative changes (e.g. Royal Decree-Law 7/2024 of 11 November[1]). In addition, 
although this is not related to working time, the EESC notes that according to a study – which applied epidemiological models to temperature and mortality records in 823 contiguous regions from 35 countries to estimate sex- and age-specific heat-related mortality in Europe in 2023, and to quantify the mortality burden avoided by societal adaptation to rising temperatures since the year 2000 –
 increasing heatwaves caused 47 000 deaths in Europe in 2023 (the hottest year on record worldwide, and the second hottest in Europe) [2].










[1]


See link.












[1]


See link.














[2]


Nature Medicine, ‘Heat-related mortality in Europe during 2023 and the role of adaptation in protecting health’, 2024.












[2]


Nature Medicine, ‘Heat-related mortality in Europe during 2023 and the role of adaptation in protecting health’, 2024.









Reason

It is proposed that the text make it explicit that the number of deaths caused by heatwaves originates from a study that applied epidemiological models to temperature and mortality records in 823 contiguous regions from 35 countries to estimate sex- and age-specific heat-related mortality in Europe during 2023 and to quantify the mortality burden avoided by societal adaptation to rising temperatures since the year 2000.







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


77




Against:


132




Abstention:


6




AMENDMENT 2

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Point 3.11


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC also notes that in Greece the possibility of working a sixth day a week has been introduced by law, effective from 1 July 2024 (Law 5053/2023, Articles 25 and 26). This rule was introduced to combat undeclared work, as well as to increase the employees’ salaries (on the 6th day, salaries are increased by 40 %). This mainly concerns companies that operate five days a week, 24 hours a day, with a rotating shift system. This regulation is favoured by employers and opposed by trade unions.


The EESC also notes that in Greece the possibility of working a sixth day a week has been introduced by law, effective from 1 July 2024 (Law 5053/2023, Articles 25 and 26). This rule was introduced to combat undeclared work, as well as to increase the employees’ salaries (on the 6th day, salaries are increased by 40 %). This mainly concerns companies that operate five days a week, 24 hours a day, with a rotating shift system. This regulation is favoured by employers and opposed by trade unions. 
It should be mentioned that when employees make use of this voluntary option, it allows them to increase their income[1].






 










[1]






See BBC News,



Greece starts six-day working week



, July 2024. The legislation applies to certain industries only, and clearly indicates that the possibility to work up to 48 hours is optional for workers, who get paid an extra 40 % for the overtime they do.











Reason

According to news sources (Greece starts six-day working week), this new legislation, which came into effect at the start of July, applies to certain industries and allows employees to work up to 48 hours a week, as opposed to 40. It applies only to businesses which operate on a 24-hour basis and is optional for workers, who get paid an extra 40 % for the overtime they do. It follows from this that workers who make use of this option can increase their income.







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


86




Against:


128




Abstention:


7




AMENDMENT 3

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Point 1.1


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC considers that working time is one of the aspects of work with the greatest impact on people’s quality of life (well-being) and is key to the efficient organisation of economic activity in companies. Appropriate working-time arrangements can make enterprises more sustainable and improve their productivity. This view is shared by the social partners. The EESC considers the definition of working time reduction as working fewer hours per reference period 
with the same salary levels
, to clearly differentiate between shorter working days in the form of part-time work and compressed working days (that is, the same number of hours worked in fewer days, for example, 4 days of 10 hours).


The EESC considers that working time is one of the aspects of work with the greatest impact on people’s quality of life (well-being) and is key to the efficient organisation of economic activity in companies. Appropriate working-time arrangements can make enterprises more sustainable and improve their productivity. This view is shared by the social partners. The EESC considers the definition of working time reduction as working fewer hours per reference period, to clearly differentiate between shorter working days in the form of part-time work and compressed working days (that is, the same number of hours worked in fewer days, for example, 4 days of 10 hours).





Reason

It is proposed that the reference to the same salary levels be removed, as it is for the social partners to decide on and design potential schemes to reduce working time (if any).







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


92




Against:


131




Abstention:


3




AMENDMENT 4

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Point 1.9


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
highlights among the pilot projects on working-time reduction the
 Eurofound 
one
: ‘Working-time reduction with a focus on the four-day week
’,
 which 
states in its first conclusions: ‘Reduced working time improves productivity, enhances mental health and reduces stress, and is key to a sustainable balance in the current context of digital transformation. It also contributes to preventing work-related illnesses and strengthening the general well-being of
 working 
people’
. In this regard, the EESC highlights 
the
 positive effects 
of reduced working time
 on society, such as demographic renewal, gender equality, a reduced burden on the healthcare system and potentially keeping workers in the world of work for longer, thus creating a positive environment conducive of creativity and innovation. A good social environment not only benefits the state but also companies and workers.


The EESC 
notes that
 Eurofound 
has published a working paper
: ‘Working-time reduction with a focus on the four-day week
: Literature review
’
[1]
 which 
presents some experiments in reducing
 working 
hours
. In this regard, the EESC highlights 
that a shortened working week, if agreed by social partners at company level, may have
 positive effects on society, such as demographic renewal, gender equality, a reduced burden on the healthcare system and potentially keeping workers in the world of work for longer, thus creating a positive environment conducive of creativity and innovation. A good social environment not only benefits the state but also companies and workers.




 










[1]






Eurofound, ’



Working time reduction with a focus on the four-day week: Literature review’



, 2024 (the literature review has the disclaimer: This working paper has not been subject to the full Eurofound evaluation, editorial and publication process)
.









Reason

If this point intends to refer to the Eurofound working paper Working-time reduction with a focus on the four-day week – Literature review, this should be clarified in the text. On the one hand, there was no publicly available information on the Eurofound pilot project under this heading and, on the other, it was not possible to find in the literature review the quote used in this point. It is also proposed to underline that any reduction in the working week should be based on agreement by social partners at company level, as only social partners at company level are able to decide what kind of working time arrangements are compatible with how the enterprise is run.







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


97




Against:


126




Abstention:


7




AMENDMENT 5

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Point 1.10


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC encourages the 
EU institutions,
 national governments and social partners to 
accelerate the recognition of digital disconnection as a
 right 
for all EU workers. According
 to case 
law of the Court
 of 
Justice
 of 
the European Union of 19 December 2024, C-531/23, Loredas[1])
, 
digital disconnection policies
 and time 
recording systems in organisations are essential safeguards
 to 
ensure
 the 
effectiveness
 of 
working- time rules, including, where appropriate, rules on the reduction
 of 
working time.




The EESC encourages the national governments and social partners
, especially at company level,
 to 
continue discussions on how to promote the
 right to 
disconnect, which, in the
 case of 
some types
 of 
jobs
, 
can help to better manage working time both for workers
 and 
employers. At the same
 time
, the EESC acknowledges that the right
 to 
disconnect will not solve
 the 
challenge
 of 
over-use
 of 
digital tools for private purposes
.












[1]






See link
.






 





Reason

It is proposed that this point be redrafted to make it clearer, and to establish a link between discussions on the right to disconnect and managing working time. It is about the right to disconnect and not how working time is organised.
We also propose that the reference to Case C-531/23, Loredas, be deleted. Contrary to what the text claims, it does not seem to be linked to digital disconnection policies. Thus it would not seem relevant in the context of this paragraph. The case concerns domestic work, and in its preliminary ruling question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC, read in conjunction with Directives 2000/78/EC (1), 2006/54/EC (2) and 2010/41/EU (3), and with Articles 20 and 21 and Article 31(2) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which domestic employers are exempt from the obligation to establish a system for measuring the length of time worked by domestic employees.







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


90




Against:


126




Abstention:


4




AMENDMENT 6

SOC/819 — Working time, efficiency of the economy and well-being of workers


Annex I


Delete the whole of annex I







Section opinion


Amendment






ANNEX I: PILOT PROJECTS FOR THE REDUCTION OF WORKING TIME: STATE OF PLAY




 






[...]




 






This initiative reflects Lithuania’s commitment to advance progressive labour policies adapted to the needs of today’s society.




 





Reason

It is proposed that the entire annex be deleted.
Firstly, the annex was added to the text after the first study group (without any discussions in the study group on adding such an annex).
The content of the annex was not discussed in the second study group meeting (due to lack of time).
The written proposals put forward by Group I study group members following the second study group were mostly discarded. The amendments proposed by Group I members in the SOC section meeting were presented and voted on in one go, and therefore there was no in-depth discussion of the content of the annex in the section either.
Although it was argued at the SOC section meeting that the text of the annex is factual and neutral, the annex in fact includes text that either gives a positive assessment or indicates ‘faults’. For example, in the case of the Belgian reform (that allows workers to work four days while maintaining the same weekly working hours), the annex mentions as one of the challenges the ‘lack of real reduction of hours’.
All of the section amendments from Group I members, including those aimed purely at making the text more neutral or clarifying the text, or those proposing additional text with the sources indicated (just to mention two examples: the proposed addition from the 4 Day Week Global Website – also referred to by the rapporteur – in the German example, as well as the proposed addition from discussions in the 2023 National Labour Council in France), were rejected by the rapporteur and not adopted in the section vote.
In these circumstances, and especially given that the content of the annex was not discussed in any of the study group meetings, it is proposed that the entire annex be deleted.







Outcome of the vote:





In favour:


93




Against:


129




Abstention:


3






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/54/oj).

(3)  Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC (OJ L 180, 15.7.2010, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/41/oj).



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2960/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)