Greece considers allowing workdays of up to 13 hours

Greece considers allowing workdays of up to 13 hours

Thirteen hours of work per day. Forty-eight per week. Read at once, the figure sounds dystopian, but it is not an invention: it is the framework being discussed in Greece to flexibilize working hours, allowing the sum of ordinary and extraordinary hours to reach that ceiling. The detail that dismantles easy alarmism is that it does not involve thirteen mandatory hours every day, but rather a legal maximum combining standard shifts and overtime. Nevertheless, the headline has been enough to ignite the debate on whether this is flexibility or a step back in time.

The fine print matters. Today, the ordinary Greek workday is around 8 hours, and daily overtime can add up to 4, totaling 12. The proposal would add one more hour to the daily count, but maintains the weekly limit at 48 hours and the annual overtime cap at 150 hours. In other words, paper allows for 13, but the week and year apply the brakes. Those who only read the headline miss exactly that: the corset preventing exceptions from becoming routine.

The calculation that debunks the slogan

If you add commutes and lunch breaks, the day leaves no room for sleep. This is the most circulated argument and the hardest to refute: thirteen hours of presence plus two for meals plus travel turns the workday into a sentence from which one only escapes to sleep. The technical response is that the 48-hour weekly limit prevents repeating the daily maximum, but the human response is that the body does not understand annual calculations.

Some argue that peak productivity cannot sustain thirteen hours even as a joke, and that stretching the workday only works in jobs where one sits waiting. A doctor does not operate for thirteen straight hours like someone making sausages, nor does a teacher write on the blackboard without rest. Conversely, in an office where sometimes no paperwork arrives, the clock stretches without anyone noticing the difference. The uncomfortable conclusion is that the measure does not measure effort; it measures presence.

Who pays for the party and who rows

The Greek background is not new. Greece was the European laboratory for bailouts, adjustments, and external supervision, and any labor reform coming from Athens is read through the lens of those years. The discussion on hours intersects with debt, rescue packages, and who bears the cost of an economy that has been rowing for years. It is no coincidence that Varoufakis's name appears repeatedly: he was the face of failed negotiations and remains the magnet for all disputes.

At the other extreme is the argument of the foreign taxpayer. If the euro prevents hyperinflation, it also forces some countries to work to support others, and there long workdays are sold as pedagogy. It is a harsh, debatable, and very repeated thesis: that adjustment is not policy, but a bill.

The trap of job offers

The nuance almost nobody discusses concerns new contracts. In low-skilled jobs, it suffices for the next offer to lower the base salary and complete it only if long hours are accepted. The worker does not choose between eight and thirteen: they choose between thirteen or unemployment. In office or factory positions, where replacement is more expensive, the employer's margin narrows. Flexibility, thus, is not distributed equally: it hits hardest where labor is most disposable.

The suggested solution is filing complaints. If the hours are illegal, they are claimed and paid. It sounds reasonable on paper and complicated in practice, because reporting requires time, evidence, and guts. And guts are scarce when the contract is temporary and the candidate list is long.

The precedent nobody wants to look at

While Europe debates workdays, another corner of the world applies the 996 formula: nine in the morning to nine at night, six days a week. Salaries, however, are science fiction seen from Spain. The contrast serves the usual purpose: here we are scandalized by thirteen hours, and there they sign them as part of the innovation package. The difference is not sarracena; it is pay.

The underlying discussion is not how many hours fit in a day, but who decides how many. If the legal framework sets a ceiling and collective bargaining lowers it, thirteen is an anecdote. If the ceiling becomes the floor, thirteen is the new eight under another name. With these elements, the question remains unanswered.