Background on the Reform
Mexico’s anticipated constitutional and legal reform to reduce the maximum weekly work limit to 40 hours has been met with caution from the labor sector. The reform, scheduled to be implemented gradually until 2030, has raised concerns due to its ambiguous points and potential legal risks.
Experts’ Concerns
In a recent discussion, labor experts Amado Díaz, Juan Carlos de la Vega, and Rolando Noriega agreed that the legislative process presents an “opportunity of gold” to incorporate norms ensuring clarity.
Conceptual Change of Work Hours
Amado Díaz highlighted that the traditional definition of work hours, which was “the time during which a worker is at the disposal of their employer,” has changed to “the time during which an individual performs subordinate activities for another.” While this aims for flexibility, it introduces uncertainty regarding rest periods.
Juan Carlos de la Vega echoed the importance of discussing the half-hour aspect, stating that if a worker is not engaged in subordinate activities, it would not count towards the 8 or 40-hour workweek. However, Díaz reminded that Article 64, which remains unaltered, mandates counting such time as effective if a worker cannot leave their workplace. Thus, “we should understand that rest time must be considered part of the work hours.”
Lack of Compensation Schemes
The employers’ request for compensatory time schemes or average monthly/four-week jornada was not included. Amado Díaz lamented that Mexico did not adopt this, maintaining strict weekly counting and limiting the flexible distribution of work hours for continuous operations (24/7).
Vacation Time Equity
With the new authority to distribute weekly work hours, vacation days (annual rest days) lack a mechanism for equity. Amado Díaz pointed out that “giving one vacation day of 8 hours is not the same as giving a 12-hour day,” highlighting inequity between groups working 8×6 and others working 12×4. He suggested that legislators should consider setting vacation time “by hours to avoid these doubts.”
Ambiguity in Article 68
The scope of Article 68, which states that workers are not obligated to work beyond the time “permitted in this chapter,” remains debated. Although the law now sets clear limits (12-hour doubles and 4 triples per week), the obligation for overtime remains ambiguous.
Electronic Recording of Work Hours
Article 132, Section 34’s requirement for electronic recording of work hours provides clarity in lawsuits but raises concerns about trustworthy workers. Juan Carlos de la Vega expressed his “greatest concern” for this group, as electronic records are mandatory, and the absence of such records would automatically presume overtime work, leading to condemnation.
Gradual Reduction of Hours
The gradual reduction from 48 to 40 hours is clearly outlined in the transitional section for daytime work. However, it does not mention mixed (45 hours) or nighttime (42 hours) work.
No Implied Wage Reduction
Article Cuarto Transitorio’s principle that reducing work hours “does not imply a decrease in salaries, wages, or benefits” is clear. However, it creates an issue for hourly-paid workers (like call centers) or piecework employees, who would naturally earn less if working fewer hours. Rolando Noriega emphasized that “the correct approach is to respect this,” as the goal is more rest, not less pay.
