By Matt Underwood Mexico’s Senate has taken a significant step towards altering the nation’s work structure by approving a presidential proposal to reduce the legal workweek. This initial vote saw the Senate back a shift from the current 48-hour workweek to a 40-hour one. It’s interesting to note that many, like myself, might have just assumed Mexico already operated on a 40-hour standard, much like in the United States. This highlights a common misconception and brings to light a long-standing aspect of Mexico’s labor laws.
The approval came with a substantial majority, with 121 votes in favor, indicating a strong consensus within the Senate on the general principle of reducing working hours. This initiative now proceeds to the lower house of Congress, where it will undergo further debate and scrutiny before potentially becoming final law. The path ahead involves more discussion, but this initial backing is a clear signal of intent from the Senate.
What’s particularly noteworthy is that this reform isn’t an immediate jump to a 40-hour week. Instead, the proposal aims for a gradual reduction. It envisions lowering the workweek by two hours annually, with the full implementation of the 40-hour week expected by 2030. This phased approach is designed to allow businesses and workers alike to adapt to the changing landscape of working hours over the next several years, impacting an estimated 13.4 million workers across the country.
If the bill successfully navigates the legislative process and becomes law, the reform is slated to take effect on May 1st. However, the actual implementation of the reduced hours will begin in January 2027, with the first two-hour cut being applied at that time. This gradual rollout means that the immediate impact won’t be felt in terms of reduced daily or weekly hours for some time, which is a crucial detail to understand about the proposal.
The Senate’s move to reduce the workweek came despite some resistance, notably from both labor unions and opposition parties. This resistance, however, was overcome with a revamped version of the reform, suggesting that the current proposal addresses some of the concerns that were raised. It’s a complex situation where a policy designed to benefit workers faced opposition from some of the very groups meant to advocate for them.
A key point of contention, and a primary reason for union opposition, seems to stem from the fact that the reform does not mandate two days off. While the workweek is being shortened, the traditional six-day workweek appears to be maintained, with the Senate majority rejecting calls for a mandated two-day weekend. This is a significant detail, as it means the reduction in hours might not translate into the kind of extended leisure time that many would associate with a shortened workweek.
Further complicating matters, some critics argue that the reform is more of a superficial change than a genuine improvement. Concerns have been raised that the law, as it stands, is designed to “look good” without fundamentally altering the working conditions for many. The argument is that the lack of guaranteed two days off, coupled with changes to overtime regulations, means that the core experience of a six-day, 48-hour (or potentially longer with overtime) workweek might persist for a considerable number of employees.
The perceived “scam” aspect, as some have described it, centers on the idea that the law might not deliver tangible benefits. It’s suggested that the emphasis is on reducing hours without ensuring that wages are adjusted proportionally, leaving hourly workers potentially earning less if their total hours are reduced. The union’s desire for more guaranteed days off, rather than just a reduction in total hours spread over six days, points to a preference for a more substantial shift in work-life balance.
Moreover, there are worries that the reform allows for an increase in the maximum number of overtime hours that can be worked, while potentially reducing the compensation for that overtime. This, combined with the absence of a legal requirement for consecutive 8-hour work blocks, allows for flexible scheduling by employers that could include “4-hour breaks” during the day, effectively allowing companies to schedule employees only during peak demand hours.
The discussion also touches on the desire for different working models altogether. Many expressed a preference for a compressed workweek, such as working 10 hours over four days, or even a highly compressed 40-hour shift in a single day, followed by several days off. These preferences highlight a broader desire for more control over one’s time and a move away from the traditional Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five structure, or in this case, a six-day workweek.
Ultimately, while the Senate’s vote represents a step towards reducing working hours in Mexico, the nuances of the reform, particularly the gradual implementation, the lack of mandated two days off, and concerns about overtime, suggest that the full impact and true benefit for workers are still subjects of considerable debate and will depend heavily on how the law is implemented and interpreted by employers. The question of “what’s stopping” a more immediate and comprehensive reform remains a central point of discussion for those advocating for a more significant shift in Mexico’s labor landscape.