Related articles
Insights to understand the work environment, anticipate risks, and make decisions with clarity, free from noise and unnecessary jargon.
View all
In unionized companies, the 40-hour reform should not be analyzed solely as a change in working hours. It must be understood as a shift with a direct impact on collective labor relations. Reducing weekly hours can alter shifts, breaks, productivity, overtime, bonuses, staffing coverage, and dynamics that, in many cases, are already part of the daily life of the workplace.
This means that implementation will not depend solely on a unilateral decision by the company. In organizations with a collective bargaining agreement, active union representation, or high labor density, any significant adjustment can become a subject for discussion, review, or negotiation. And if the company arrives late to that conversation, it may lose strategic leverage.
The risk lies not only in failing to comply with the law. It also lies in failing to control the internal narrative. When a labor reform changes employee expectations, the union can become the primary channel for interpretation. If the company lacks clear information, operational scenarios, and an implementation roadmap, the conversation can be defined by pressure, perception, or accumulated grievances.
That is why the reform must be prepared before it formally reaches the negotiating table. Unionized companies need to anticipate which clauses may be affected, which areas will have the greatest impact, what data supports their position, and what messages they must communicate to avoid uncertainty.
Working hours are one of the most sensitive elements within any collective relationship. They not only define how long a person works, but also impact income, rest, family organization, transportation, meals, productivity, and the ability to generate overtime.
In many companies, especially in the industrial and service sectors, working hours are deeply connected to the collective bargaining agreement. There may be clauses regarding shifts, rest days, rotations, premiums, overtime, schedule changes, permits, special breaks, or specific conditions for certain areas.
When the workweek is reduced, those clauses may need a review. Not necessarily because they all must be modified, but because the company must understand which ones remain compatible with the new model and which ones may create inconsistencies.
The problem is that this review does not occur in a neutral environment. Unions may interpret the reform as an opportunity to negotiate additional benefits, adjust workloads, or challenge previous practices. The company, for its part, may be focused on maintaining operational continuity and controlling costs. If both parties arrive without objective information, the negotiation can become reactive.
Preparation consists precisely of avoiding that scenario. Before opening any conversation, the company must know what it needs, what it can concede, what it cannot sustain, and what evidence it has to justify its position.
A common reaction may be to wait for the next collective bargaining agreement review. That approach may be insufficient. In practice, the impact of the reform can begin before the formal review, especially if workers perceive changes in shifts, breaks, supervision, or time tracking.
Furthermore, the union may get ahead of the process. They may request information, raise concerns, promote assemblies, or incorporate the reduction of working hours as a bargaining chip. If the company has not done its internal analysis, it may be forced to respond without data.
Waiting can also limit design capacity. Serious implementation requires time to map positions, evaluate shifts, calculate costs, review clauses, prepare scenarios, and train management. If the company leaves everything for the moment of negotiation, it will likely end up making decisions under pressure.
In collective matters, anticipation is not just a best practice. It is a strategic advantage. It allows for organizing information, defining limits, identifying conflict risks, and building a stronger position in front of the union.
The reduction of working hours can open multiple fronts for conversation. Some will be obvious. Others may appear indirectly.
The first will be the weekly distribution of working time. If the company reduces hours, it must define how the new schedule will be distributed: fewer hours per day, more rest days, adjusted shifts, or schemes differentiated by area. Each alternative can have different implications for workers and for operations.
The second factor is overtime. In many companies, overtime hours function not only as a coverage tool but also as an expected component of income. If the reform reduces the possibility of generating extra hours or changes how they are authorized, there may be resistance. The company must ensure that overtime is not used as a structural solution, but it must also understand its impact on employees' economic perception.
The third factor is productivity. If the company needs to maintain production or service levels with fewer regular hours, it will likely seek greater efficiency. This topic can create tension with the union if not explained correctly. Productivity should not be presented as unilateral pressure, but rather as part of an operational redesign supported by data.
The fourth factor is time tracking. Electronic or digital control systems can raise concerns regarding surveillance, sanctions, privacy, or data usage. The company must be able to explain why time is being tracked, how the information is managed, who has access to it, and how it relates to labor compliance.
The fifth factor is coverage for absences and breaks. In shift-based operations, any absence can lead to immediate adjustments. If working hours are reduced, the company needs clear mechanisms to cover medical leave, time off, absences, and demand spikes without violating shift limits.
All these topics can be part of a formal negotiation or a daily conversation with the union. In either case, the company must address them with rigor.
One of the biggest mistakes in collective bargaining is arriving with general arguments. Saying that "the operation doesn't allow it" or that "costs will be too high" can be insufficient if there is no information to back it up.
The company must build evidence. This includes data on actual working hours, overtime, absenteeism, productivity per shift, critical positions, coverage costs, impact by work center, and implementation scenarios. It must also identify which areas can adapt with less complexity and which require a specific strategy.
Evidence allows for distinguishing between an operational preference and a real necessity. It also helps avoid poorly calculated concessions. In union negotiations, every modification can set a precedent. If the company concedes without measuring the impact, it may compromise its future margins.
Furthermore, data helps build a more credible narrative. It is not just about saying the company needs continuity. It is about demonstrating how the operation works, what risks exist if it is implemented without order, and what alternatives allow for balancing compliance, employment, productivity, and labor stability.
Before negotiating, the company must review its collective bargaining agreement with a specific question in mind: which clauses might be impacted by the reduction in working hours?
This review should include provisions on schedules, shifts, breaks, overtime, bonuses, time off, transfers, productivity, joint commissions, training, health and safety, and internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
It should also be reviewed whether there are recurring practices that, although not clearly documented, are part of the collective relationship. In some workplaces, certain dynamics become normalized over time: entry grace periods, informal shift swaps, coverage between colleagues, accumulated breaks, or flexible criteria for overtime. The reform may force these practices to be formalized.
The contractual review should not be seen as a defensive exercise. It is a planning tool. It allows for identifying where friction might occur, what needs to be clarified with the union, and which internal documents must be updated to avoid contradictions.
The 40-hour reform can generate high expectations. If the company does not communicate clearly, employees may assume that the change will be immediate, uniform, or without operational adjustments. Questions may also arise regarding salary, breaks, overtime, or shift modifications.
Internal communication must be handled carefully. It should not minimize rights or generate uncertainty. Nor should it promise conditions that have not yet been defined. It is advisable to communicate progressively: explain that the company is conducting a diagnostic, that any implementation will be orderly, that the applicable framework will be respected, and that the goal is to maintain operational and labor stability.
In unionized companies, this communication must be coordinated with the collective strategy. It is not advisable to send messages that could be interpreted as a parallel negotiation or an attempt to bypass the union. The company must be mindful of both the content and the channel.
Responsible implementation requires scenario planning. Companies must analyze different paths and their effects. For example: daily hour reductions, creating additional shifts, staggered extra time off, weekly redistribution, department-specific adjustments, or transitional schemes.
Each scenario must be evaluated based on labor, economic, and operational criteria. What is the cost? Which clauses are affected? Which departments are impacted? What is the effect on productivity? Does it require new hiring? Does it increase or decrease overtime? Can it be properly documented? What level of union resistance might it trigger?
This work allows for clearer negotiations. The company does not arrive unprepared; it arrives with options, boundaries, and a solid foundation.
It also helps identify which topics are worth negotiating and which should be resolved internally before sitting down with the union. Not everything needs to be brought to the table. Some decisions belong to the company's operational design. Others, due to their collective nature, may indeed require dialogue or formal adjustment.
Reducing working hours can be implemented in an orderly fashion or become a point of tension. The difference lies in the preparation. A company that arrives without a diagnosis may face complaints, conflicting interpretations, union pressure, shift inconsistencies, and increased costs. A company that anticipates these issues can streamline its operations, strengthen its negotiating position, and reduce risks.
The key is to understand that the reform goes beyond the legal text. In unionized companies, its real impact is defined by the interaction between regulations, collective bargaining agreements, operations, and union relations.
For this reason, the labor department must work in an integrated manner with those who know the workplace. Negotiation strategies cannot be designed from an office without understanding how shifts function, which areas are most sensitive, and which issues carry historical weight in the collective relationship.
At De la Vega & Martínez Rojas, we support unionized companies with collective impact analysis, review of collective bargaining agreements, preparation of implementation scenarios, and the design of labor negotiation strategies regarding the 40-hour workweek reform through our Collective Bargaining practice.
.png){kind=logo}