Amendments to Mexico's Federal Labor Law published on May 1, 2026 changed the regulation of weekly working hours, scheduling, overtime and working-time records. Although Article 59 now sets a 40-hour maximum, its implementation is phased through 2030.
For employers, the challenge is to interpret the provisions together. A shorter workweek does not override daily limits, eliminate the need for applicable scheduling agreements or replace rest and overtime rules. This analysis explains Articles 58, 59, 61, 66, 68 and 132 alongside the transitional provisions determining when each adjustment applies.
The reform is in force, but the full 40-hour weekly limit does not apply in 2026. The transitional rules establish yearly limits, so workforce schedules must be designed for the applicable year.
The transition changes two different limits
The decree sets separate schedules for the ordinary weekly working-time maximum and for the weekly overtime limit under Article 66. Employers need both when planning staffing, shift coverage and employment agreements. The period from May 1 through December 31, 2026 is designated for operational adjustments.
Transitional Article Seven expressly prohibits reductions in salaries, wages or employee benefits as a result of the shorter workweek. The overtime values shown here refer to Article 66 and should not be confused with the separate excess-hours rule under Article 68.
Article 58: schedules must reflect an agreement
The definition of working time remains the period during which an employee is at the employer's disposal to perform work. A new provision allows the distribution of working hours to be agreed between the employer and the employee.
This matters for shift work, compressed arrangements and operations requiring different levels of coverage. However, the possibility of agreement should not be read as unrestricted permission to exceed the applicable weekly or daily maximum. Individual contracts, collective agreements and the circumstances of the workplace must also be assessed.
Management decision: document agreed schedules and check them against daily, weekly and rest requirements.
Article 59: the 40-hour maximum is phased in through 2030
The amended provision establishes a maximum ordinary workweek of 40 hours. Its application is governed by the transitional schedule: 48 hours in 2026, with a two-hour reduction each year from 2027.
The removal of the former paragraph expressly addressing distribution of hours for a Saturday afternoon rest raises interpretive questions for rotating shifts and compressed schedules. Practices based on averaging hours over multiple weeks require careful analysis of the current statutory text, the scheduling agreement contemplated by Article 58 and the applicable limits. Employers should not assume that every historic averaging arrangement remains automatically permitted—or that all redistribution is prohibited.
Control point: evaluate each schedule by week and by the relevant type of working day before relying on averages.
Article 61: the weekly reform does not replace daily limits
The law specifies daily working-time limits of eight hours for daytime work, seven for nighttime work and seven and a half for mixed shifts. The amendment expressly refers to their daily character.
Employers must read daily and weekly ceilings together. Shift design involves not only total weekly hours but the type of shift, rest periods that count as effective working time and the operational circumstances at each workplace.
Practical implication: retain reliable daily hours rather than relying solely on an aggregate weekly payroll figure.
Article 66: the overtime rules have their own timetable
The reform allows working time to be extended in extraordinary circumstances. The final statutory rule contemplates up to 12 overtime hours per week, in blocks of up to four hours per day across no more than four days, with remuneration at a 100% premium over ordinary hourly pay.
The 12-hour weekly limit is not available immediately: Transitional Article Four retains nine hours for 2026 and 2027, then provides for ten, eleven and twelve weekly hours in 2028, 2029 and 2030, respectively. Employers should not design 2026 or 2027 staffing plans around the limit scheduled for 2030.
Repeal of the second paragraph of Article 67 relocates the overtime-pay provision into Article 66. The exceptional nature of overtime calls for clear authorization and recordkeeping; it should not become the default solution for permanent staffing shortages.
Management decision: adjust overtime authorizations and shift arrangements to the limits applicable in each year.
Two overtime regimes that must not be treated as interchangeable
Article 66 · Overtime
Qualifying overtime under Article 66 is paid at a 100% premium on ordinary hourly pay. Its weekly limit increases gradually from nine to twelve hours between 2026 and 2030.
Article 68 · Excess hours
Hours exceeding the limits of Article 66 are subject to a further weekly cap of four hours and a 200% premium over ordinary pay. These hours should not be treated as standard scheduled capacity.
The combined twelve-hour daily ceiling for ordinary and overtime work is a separate constraint in addition to the weekly caps.
Article 68: a twelve-hour daily ceiling and a separate excess-hours rule
Article 68 provides that employees are not required to work beyond the permitted limits. It also governs overtime exceeding Article 66, capped at a further four hours per week and payable at a 200% premium over ordinary hourly pay.
In addition, ordinary and overtime hours combined may not exceed twelve hours in any day. This requires particular attention in shift handovers, remote operations, standby arrangements and periods of peak demand. The excess-hours provision should not be treated as routinely available scheduled time or confused with Article 66 overtime.
Operational risk: double shifts may need redesign even if their aggregated weekly totals appear workable.
Article 132(XXXIV): electronic working-time records
The new provision requires electronic recording of the beginning and end of each worker's working day and production of those records to the authority when requested. It also provides that the records will have full evidentiary value if it is shown that they were agreed by employer and employee.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) must issue general rules defining the obligation's scope and exemptions. Under Transitional Article Five, these rules take effect from January 1, 2027. It is therefore important to distinguish the statutory obligation from the implementation details that those rules will define.
Article 994(IV Bis) provides for penalties of 250 to 5,000 units of measurement and adjustment (UMA) for an employer subject to the recording duty that fails to comply, according to the applicable enforcement framework. Working-time records should reflect hours actually worked and support consistent access, retention and audit processes.
Preparation: assess current timekeeping quality without assuming the STPS has already mandated one universal electronic format.
What the law defines—and what depends on STPS rules
Record and substantiate
Start and end times; provision of records to the authority where required; full evidentiary effect only when the parties' agreement is established.
Scope and exemptions
General rules will define which employers are covered, relevant exceptions and implementation details. Employers should not assume a final universal format without reviewing them.
Other provisions that complete the reform
Its second paragraph on overtime pay is repealed, with the subject addressed in Article 66.
The law retains at least one paid rest day for every six days worked and a minimum Sunday premium of 25% for those working on Sunday.
A new subsection IV Bis provides a penalty regime for covered employers failing to comply with the recording duty.
Five employer reviews to complete before 2027
- Working-time map by role.
Identify day, night and mixed shifts, handovers, on-call coverage, rest arrangements and business-critical operating hours.
- Contracts and scheduling agreements.
Compare actual schedules with employment documents and collective bargaining agreements; plan adjustments requiring agreement.
- Year-specific overtime controls.
Review phased weekly limits, authorization, pay treatment and the combined daily cap.
- Evidence of actual hours.
Compare attendance systems with the information required to establish start times, end times and overtime.
- Cost and business continuity scenarios.
Model staffing, shift redesign and productivity without assuming reductions in employee pay or benefits.
Implementation requires more than changing a number on a schedule
Reading Articles 58, 59, 61, 66, 68 and 132 together shows that the shorter workweek involves more than amending the weekly hour total in an employment contract. Employers need to identify the correct regime, document agreements, manage overtime and develop reliable evidence of time worked.
For further operational context, see our analysis of Mexico's 40-hour workweek and employer readiness and our guide to working-time records. This is a general explanatory resource; particular arrangements must be assessed under their own legal and operational circumstances.
.png){kind=logo}