Relaxing the 10-Hour Limit: Consequences for Corporate Working Time Systems

In this article, Dr Andreas Hoff analyses the concrete impact of a new regulation on self-managed and scheduled working time models. This article reflects the author's personal assessment based on years of expert knowledge.

What such a new regulation could look like in practice

I base the following explanations on the assumption that the black-red coalition will reach a compromise regarding the abolition of the current statutory maximum daily working time of 10h—a demand massively pushed by business representatives in particular. This compromise is likely to be oriented towards the Austrian model introduced in 2018, roughly as follows:

• On a self-managed basis or through ordered overtime, work may exceed 10h per day (this limit thus remains partially intact) up to 12h, whereby the individual employee may refuse daily working hours >10h at any time without giving reasons, and without being disadvantaged or dismissed as a result.
• In any given 7-day period (168h), no more than 60h may be worked, and on average over 4 calendar months or 17 weeks, a maximum of 48h.
• The statutory regulations regarding breaks and rest periods remain unaffected.

Deviating from the last draft bill to amend the Working Hours Act leaked from the Federal Ministry of Labour in June, I do not assume here that daily working times >10h will only be possible via collective agreement and/or works agreement. However, due to the well-known and highly understandable resistance of most trade unions and works councils to such long daily working hours, this could lead to an indirect favouring of companies without a collective agreement and/or works council. This, in turn, could complicate achieving the EU Minimum Wage Directive's goal of collective bargaining coverage of at least 80% (instead of currently under 50% in Germany).

In the following two sections, I present the possible impact of such an opening on individual corporate working time systems. I distinguish between self-managed systems controlled by the employees themselves (flexitime with core hours, flexible day work without core hours, and trust-based working hours—with employers waiving the control of compliance with contractual hours, but not statutory regulations!) on the one hand, and scheduled systems on the other, in which the timing and distribution of working hours are prescribed to employees—such as in industrial shift operations and within the framework of rosters used in hospitals, public transport, and call centres.

Possible impact on self-managed working time systems

In these systems, I have for many years—and especially with trust-based working hours—recommended a working time frame of a maximum 13h duration (e.g., from 07:00 to 20:00), outside of which work may only be performed in exceptional cases and only in coordination with, or on the instruction of, the manager. In such cases, the manager bears special responsibility to ensure that the statutory rest period is still adhered to. This serves the purpose of:

• Automatically accounting for the regular statutory minimum rest period between two working days of 11h (which, as a side effect in trust-based working hours, simplifies the legally required recording of working time, as start and end times only need to be recorded for work outside this frame),
• Supporting the health-promoting, regular alternation between tension and relaxation, as well as an individually relatively consistent and thus healthy distribution of working hours, and
• Fostering relatively simultaneous corporate working hours, which benefits internal communication and collaboration.

Such a guideline naturally does not work if work is frequently performed for very long hours and thus outside the working time frame. If this frame is then extended to, e.g., 06:00 to 22:00, or eliminated entirely, compliance with the statutory rest period must be separately ensured and monitored (especially with trust-based working hours!). Health burdens and potential productivity losses beyond those caused by mere working duration will arise, and corporate communication, which I view as crucial, will be impaired. Therefore, even if working up to 12h per day becomes permissible in the future, it is advisable to maintain a maximum 13h working time frame, which concurrently helps ensure that overly long daily working hours remain the exception.

This apparently also aligns with predominant corporate interests: according to a survey by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) from Q1 2026, only about one in three companies is interested in such an opening, and only approx. 3% of all companies want to use this option regularly. This concurrently limits the need for corresponding risk assessments.

Even with a working time frame limited to a maximum of 13h, legalising daily working times of up to 12h would help in managing short-term peaks in workload (due to orders and/or staff shortages). However, it would not assist with high utilisation over extended periods, because working up to 60h/w is already permissible today, albeit only when distributed over 6 days (e.g., Mon-Sat). If it becomes legally possible to work more than 10h a day, companies could, for example, dispense with Saturday work during prolonged busy periods, which could be an overall advantage for the health of the affected employees compared to today.

An opening for up to 12h working time per day could also promote the implementation of individual or even corporate 4-day weeks, for which there seems to be a significant demand among employees. It relativises one of the main corporate counter-arguments under the current 10h limit: that the highly important daily flexibility of working hours is significantly reduced compared to a 5-day week. While a 40h/w contract across a 5-day week currently allows up to 25% more work if needed before hitting the 10h limit, this flexibility is completely lost if the 40 hours are compressed into 4 days. Whether such compressed working or operating weeks actually achieve positive effects for companies, employees, and customers remains questionable.

Contractual working times significantly exceeding 40h/w could also become more attractive if the 10h limit is relaxed, as they would be much easier to fulfill. However, due to the statutory maximum weekly working time of 48h/w on average, more than 45h/w should not be agreed upon, in order to preserve a residual margin of flexibility—quite apart from the dubious productivity of such long contractual hours.

In the self-managed working time systems covered in this section, there should hardly be any issues with the statutorily guaranteed voluntary nature of working beyond 10h per day, provided this is only required exceptionally. The situation is likely to be different in scheduled working time systems, where ordered overtime would primarily be used in such cases. The following section addresses this.

Possible impact on scheduled working time systems

This concerns, on the one hand, working time systems for single-shift to round-the-clock operations and, on the other hand, contractual working hours that are continuously redistributed within the framework of rosters.

In shift work, too, permissible daily working times of up to 12h facilitate the management of fluctuations in order volume (e.g., seasonal operations) and staff availability. Individual or corporate 4-day weeks can also be realised more easily; see the previous section. However, because of the statutory voluntariness requirement assumed here, solutions must always be available in shift operations for employees who cannot or do not want to work more than 10h per day, effectively ruling out corporate systems based exclusively on shifts longer than 10h.

An opening for up to 12h is particularly advantageous in 3-shift operations (with early, late, and night shifts): if individual shifts are understaffed—e.g., due to short-term illness—employees from the preceding shift can legally stay approx. 4h longer, and employees from the subsequent shift can start approx. 4h earlier to fill the gap. This could be achieved on a voluntary basis, partly because it remains preferable for employees compared to being called in on a day off. Likewise, individually desired free shifts or hours could be accommodated without requiring additional workdays, significantly easing the flexible consideration of personal needs—which is especially crucial in shift work.

In roster and deployment planning (e.g., gastronomy, events), daily working times of up to 12h also help manage short-term peaks. Yet, due to the aforementioned voluntariness requirement, shift times of up to 10h must always be kept available alongside them. Consistently scheduling shifts beyond 10h makes little sense here, in my view. Instead, future legal leeway up to 12h per day should only be utilised in situations demanding working-time flexibility—and this seems to be the consensus among the vast majority of companies.

Nevertheless, such an opening is likely to contribute to making longer shifts more attractive, as desired by many employees in exchange for fewer working days (e.g., already offered as an individual option in nursing)—at the cost of rendering planning more complex. However, I advise against offering contractual working times exceeding 40h/w in scheduled systems due to the significantly higher physical and mental strain compared to self-managed day shifts.