The 40-hour reform by role type: the mistake of applying a one-size-fits-all solution to the entire company

One of the riskiest responses to the 40-hour workweek reform will be attempting to apply the same solution to the entire company. Reducing hours uniformly may seem efficient from an administrative perspective, but it can prove insufficient (and even counterproductive) when an organization has distinct roles, departments, work models, and levels of responsibility.

A production line worker does not work the same way as a plant supervisor. An administrative team does not face the same challenges as mobile staff, sales representatives, remote workers, maintenance personnel, security, customer service, or middle management. Each group has a different way of organizing their workday, logging activities, responding to incidents, and generating evidence of compliance.

That is why the implementation of the 40-hour workweek must begin with a role matrix rather than a general announcement. Before defining new schedules, the company needs to know who is working, how they work, where they work, under what model, with what level of supervision, what system tracks their time, and what labor risks exist in each case.

The reform does not impact all workers equally

In many organizations, the workday is managed by "custom." There are established schedules, but also exceptions, informal practices, and different criteria across departments. As long as the model remains stable, those differences may seem manageable. But when the workday limit changes, these inconsistencies become more visible.

A company may have operational workers with fixed shifts, administrative staff with regular hours, trusted personnel with extended availability, sales staff working in the field, hybrid teams, remote staff, technicians who handle emergencies, and executives who do not follow a conventional schedule. Expecting everyone to migrate to the same scheme can create problems.

In some cases, the problem will be operational; in others, documentation-related; and in others, financial. There may also be risks to internal equity if certain groups perceive that the change benefits them less or imposes greater burdens on them.

Segmentation helps avoid these problems. It does not mean creating privileges or arbitrary exceptions. It means recognizing that implementation must respond to the reality of each role and be documented with objective criteria.

Operational personnel: coverage, breaks, and time control

Operational personnel are usually the first group companies analyze when discussing a reduction in working hours. This is logical, especially in industries with a high concentration of shift workers. However, the analysis should not be limited to the number of hours.

The company must review how each process is covered, which roles are essential, what breaks are granted, where overtime is generated, which incidents are frequent, and what margin exists to redistribute work without affecting productivity or safety.

In industrial operations, for example, a schedule adjustment can impact production, maintenance, cleaning, security, transportation, and shift handovers. In hotels, it can affect the front desk, food and beverage, housekeeping, maintenance, and guest services. In logistics, it can affect delivery windows, loading, unloading, inventory, and supervision.

The challenge is that operational personnel usually depend on more visible time-tracking systems. Clocking in and out is controlled, shifts are defined, and absences are detected quickly. This can facilitate implementation if the company has reliable data. But it can also expose inconsistencies if the records do not match reality.

That is why the first question should not just be how many hours will be reduced. It should be what each operation needs to function correctly within the new limit.

Middle management: the blind spot for many companies

Middle managers often fall into an ambiguous zone. They are not always treated as operational personnel, but they do not have full executive autonomy either. Supervisors, coordinators, shift leads, department heads, and operations managers often extend their availability to resolve problems, cover absences, or submit reports outside of hours.

This group can become one of the main risk points. If the company reduces the workday for operational personnel but does not redefine supervisory workloads, middle managers may absorb the pressure. They may end up filling gaps, extending their own hours, or handling incidents without a clear record.

Furthermore, there is a frequent perception that certain roles, because they involve trust or responsibility, do not require the same schedule control. That idea must be reviewed carefully. The nature of the role does not automatically eliminate the need to properly document the workday when there is an employment relationship subject to control, subordination, and time obligations.

The company must define clear rules for middle management: schedules, availability, authorization for overtime, communication channels outside of working hours, activity logs, and limits on intervention. Otherwise, implementation may shift the risk from operational staff to those in supervisory roles.

Administrative staff: the risk of false simplicity

On the surface, administrative staff may seem like the easiest group to adjust. Their schedules are usually more stable and do not always depend on continuous coverage. However, this can lead to underestimating the risk.

Administrative areas also face work spikes, month-end closings, audits, reports, internal customer service, after-hours meetings, and constant digital communication. If a company reduces working hours without streamlining these practices, it may create invisible overtime.

Modern administrative work does not always end when leaving the office. Messages, emails, video calls, and internal platforms can informally extend the workday. Therefore, implementation must include rules regarding after-hours communication, urgent matters, authorization for additional work, and the use of digital tools.

It should also be reviewed whether administrative areas truly require the same scheme. Finance, payroll, legal, procurement, customer service, human resources, and technology may have different workloads. A uniform policy may be easy to communicate, but not necessarily efficient.

Remote, hybrid, and mobile staff: working outside the office

Remote, hybrid, or mobile work poses specific challenges. When the workday does not take place within a physical workplace, the company needs clear mechanisms to verify start times, end times, breaks, and availability.

In these cases, the risk is not just a lack of control; it can also be an excess of it. Companies must balance the need to document working hours with reasonable criteria for privacy, proportionality, and trust. Not everything can be solved with digital surveillance. The system must be functional, explainable, and aligned with the nature of the position.

For remote workers, it is advisable to establish rules regarding schedules, availability, breaks, meetings, message response, and authorization for work outside of hours. For mobile or field personnel, the company must define how time is recorded when the worker visits clients, travels, handles reports, or performs activities outside of a fixed location.

The relationship between working hours and objectives must also be reviewed. A results-oriented position is not automatically exempt from working time analysis. The company needs to distinguish between operational flexibility and a lack of control. Flexibility can be maintained, but it must be documented with clear rules.

Sales and customer service staff: goals, availability, and actual working time

Sales or customer service teams may have relevant particularities. In some cases, they work toward goals, visit clients, handle calls, participate in events, respond to messages after hours, or depend on commercial availability. This can create a blurred line between regular working hours, client management, and additional time.

The reform makes it necessary to review that boundary. If a company expects a salesperson to respond to messages at any time, attend after-hours meetings, or participate in additional commercial activities, it must analyze how that time is documented and compensated when applicable.

The same applies to customer service or support areas. In services with extended hours, the reduction of the workday may require redesigning shifts, escalation processes, and service rules. The goal should not be to shift the pressure onto the worker, but to build a sustainable model.

The implementation matrix: an essential tool

The best way to avoid a disorganized implementation is to build a position matrix. This tool allows for the classification of staff and the definition of differentiated paths.

A useful matrix should include, at a minimum, the following elements: position, department, workplace, modality, current schedule, estimated actual schedule, target schedule, recording system, level of supervision, frequency of overtime, reliance on after-hours availability, operational impact, applicable documents, and necessary actions.

With this information, the company can identify risk groups. For example, positions with a high frequency of overtime, areas without reliable recording, middle managers with extended hours, remote staff without clear rules, or mobile workers without an adequate documentation system.

The matrix also allows for prioritization. Not all areas require the same level of intervention. Some will only need documentation adjustments. Others will require operational redesign, collective bargaining, training, technology, or changes to internal policies.

The importance of aligning contracts, policies, and actual operations

A differentiated implementation will not work if company documents are not aligned. Individual contracts, internal policies, internal regulations, record-keeping systems, authorization procedures, and operational practices must all tell the same story.

If the contract says one thing, the policy another, and the operation something else, the risk increases. Authorities, employees, or courts may focus precisely on those contradictions.

Companies must review whether their contracts adequately describe working hours, work arrangements, and job positions. They should also analyze whether their policies cover remote work, availability, the right to disconnect, overtime authorization, shift changes, and attendance tracking.

The goal is not to over-bureaucratize operations, but to provide them with documentary support. A company can be flexible while still having clear rules. Flexibility without documentation can turn into vulnerability.

A one-size-fits-all solution may be cheaper at the start, but more expensive later on

Applying the same schedule to the entire workforce may seem quick and can facilitate internal communication, but if it does not reflect the reality of the roles, it can lead to future costs: unforeseen overtime, loss of coverage, internal complaints, record-keeping inconsistencies, pressure on middle management, or urgent corrective adjustments.

Proper implementation requires more initial work. It demands diagnosis, segmentation, and design, but it allows for the construction of a more defensible and functional model.

The 40-hour workweek reform should not lead companies to think only about reduction. It should lead them to better understand how they work: which positions are critical, which areas depend on informal availability, which processes generate overtime, which systems do not track time accurately, and which documents no longer reflect actual operations.

This information is not just for compliance; it is for better management.

At DM Abogados, our Labor Intelligence and Engineering departments advise companies on job diagnostics, work arrangements, scheduling schemes, and labor documentation systems to implement the 40-hour reform using differentiated, traceable criteria that are aligned with actual operations.

‍