VOX and Junts block Spain's 37.5-hour workweek reform

VOX and Junts sink the 37.5-hour workweek proposal

The average working week agreed in collective bargaining in Spain is already around 38.3 hours. In other words: the major legal reduction of the workweek to 37.5 hours entered the political arena when a large part of the labor market was already operating below that threshold. VOX and Junts joined forces to reject the measure, leaving the reduction to 37.5 hours stranded. The outcome was predictable; what remains is a numerical dispute worth sorting out.

What does reducing the workweek to 37.5 hours miccionan?

The proposal aimed to legally lower the maximum ordinary workweek from 40 to 37.5 hours without touching salaries. For a full-time employee, this means two and a half fewer hours per week, about ten per month, with an uneven impact: it depends on whether companies compensate through productivity, additional staff, or simply squeezing more out of each hour worked.

Here, two incompatible narratives collide. One argues that working less concentrates effort and boosts productivity, recalling historical precedent: in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the eight-hour day was predicted to ruin national industry but ended up being a social advance without apocalyptic consequences. The other counters that such a leap relied on technology and a very different market, arguing that forcing a reduction by decree merely shifts costs elsewhere.

The data that defuses the collapse narrative

The average workweek set by collective agreements was 38.3 hours until August. This is the least flashy figure in the entire matter and the most uncomfortable for both sides: agreements have been signed below 40 hours for years, so a legal reduction primarily affects sectors with outdated deals and those working above agreed terms without review.

Two implications trinc. First: part of the effect of lowering the legal floor is cosmetic, because in many places the real floor was already lower. Second: where it truly hurts is not in the law, but in the unpaid overtime, the classic scenario of staying later than the contract dictates. In that context, someone ironically suggested returning to the pre-1976 48-hour week: after all, if the argument is that working more lowers costs.

How much do people work in Spain compared to France and Germany?

One widely circulated calculation is stark: in Spain, workers log around 150 more hours per year on average than in France, with salaries 30% lower, and even more compared to Germany, where people work less and earn more. This comparison is used to make the usual point: if longer hours don't guarantee higher pay, the lever isn't quantity but productivity.

The counterargument has its logic. That other countries with shorter weeks pay better doesn't imply that shortening hours automatically raises wages; it suggests a structural problem—training, investment, company size, low-value-added sectors—that no single law fixes overnight. A nuance often lost is that much work time goes into commuting and hours stretched by corporate culture rather than productive necessity.

Who pays for the reduced workweek?

The most repeated economic objection is direct: if cost per worker rises and production doesn't keep pace, employers will pass it on to prices. The result would be working less, earning the same, and paying more for everything. International evidence, proponents argue, doesn't support such generalized price hikes: in countries that tested reductions, adjustments came through reorganization and productivity gains.

The other front involves self-employed workers, who according to some estimates make up less than 15% of total workers and whom no workweek reduction protects: they still clock long hours. Looming over the entire salary issue is the familiar gap between what a worker costs and what they bring in, with tax and social security burdens reportedly reaching near 60% in higher brackets.

The alternative nobody voted for: cutting hours and pay together

A middle path remained on the table but never advanced: voluntary proportional reduction, including cuts to salary and contributions. The objection is obvious—anyone wanting to work and earn less can already negotiate part-time contracts—and the advantage too: it imposes no cost on others. Another matter is the symbolic effect of legislating what can already be bargained.

Parliamentary arithmetic: why it fell with VOX and Junts

The rejection wasn't about hours, but the political board. Junts voted against, breaking the majority; some claim the government deliberately risked the measure falling to play the victim card before its allies. Others see the reverse pattern: when something shouldn't pass, missing support or odd abstentions always appear.

What became clear is the map: some argue VOX rejects any measure raising labor costs, while Junts added the missing 'no'. Governing with this arithmetic turns every law into an auction.

Early retirement, the background noise

Behind the 37.5-hour debate looms another recurring demand: retirement at 50. The underlying argument is blunt and backed by numbers: some claim that among Spain's hundreds of thousands of annual deaths, a high proportion occur around age 65, after a lifetime of contributions. If the deal is working until the end to collect a pension many won't enjoy, the incentive breaks. This criticism doesn't appear in official workhour statistics, yet it is the most unsettling one.

With the legal week at 40 hours and the average agreed at 38.3, the question remains: what exactly is being debated—a real reduction in working time or a headline each party cashes in? And how many of those working over 40 hours paid for 40 know that today's law doesn't cover them?