In recent weeks, there has been heated debate over so-called “lifestyle part-time work”.At the heart of this is criticism of employees who reduce their working hours seemingly without a “valid” reason (such as raising children or providing care) in order to have more free time. There are even calls to completely abolish the legal right to part-time work.
But what does this mean in practice? Would no one really be allowed to work part-time anymore? We shed some light on the matter.
Not all part-time work is the same: The various entitlements
First, we must make a distinction: There is no such thing as “the one” part-time entitlement. Many forms of reduced working hours have a solid social basis and are not up for debate:
• Parental part-time work: During parental leave, which can last up to three years, mothers and fathers can reduce their hours.
• Care and family care leave: Those who care for close relatives at home can reduce their working hours for up to 24 months or even take a complete leave of absence.
• Health reasons: Even after a long illness, working hours can be reduced as part of a gradual reintegration process.
None of these cases are the subject of the current criticism.
The “unqualified” right: Sections 8 and 9a of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG)
The debate centers on employees who request part-time work without the law requiring a specific reason (such as family or caregiving).
1. Permanent part-time work: Under the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG), employees in companies with more than 15 employees can permanently reduce their working hours.
2. Transitional part-time work: In larger companies (over 45 employees), there is also the right to temporary part-time work, after which one automatically returns to full-time work.
Important for employers: You may reject these requests if there are operational reasons against them—such as if the workflow is significantly disrupted or disproportionately high costs are incurred.
What would a change in the law really change?
Would eliminating these entitlements boost the economy? In practice, the effects would likely be less significant than expected:
• Individual agreements: Even without a law, employers and employees can agree to part-time work at any time. In times of a skilled labor shortage, qualified employees hold the upper hand—they will often be able to secure part-time work even without legal compulsion.
• Benefits for employers: Many companies voluntarily advertise positions as part-time (e.g., in retail) to make shift schedules more flexible and avoid excess staffing.
• Risk of unemployment: The right to part-time work was originally introduced to spread the workload among more people. If everyone were forced to work full-time today, this could paradoxically lead to more layoffs as the volume of work declines.
Our conclusion: More freedom to negotiate, less bureaucracy?
Abolishing the legal right to part-time work is politically questionable. If it were to happen, one obligation for employers in particular would be eliminated: the obligation to advertise almost every position as a part-time position as well. This would significantly reduce the bureaucracy involved in job postings.
For most employment relationships, however, the following still applies: Part-time work remains an important tool for work-life balance and operational flexibility.
Contact:
Nathalie Bartelheimer