One of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s main labor commitments was the reform to establish a 40-hour workweek in Mexico, down from the 48-hour week that has been in place for over a century. On March 3, the reform to sections IV and XI of part A of Article 123 of the Constitution was published in the government’s official publication, the Official Gazette of the Federation:

The workweek shall be forty hours, under the terms established by law. For every six days of work, employees are entitled to at least one day of rest with full pay.

XI When extraordinary circumstances require an increase in working hours, overtime shall be paid at one hundred percent more than the rate for regular hours. Overtime shall not exceed twelve hours per week, which can be distributed as up to four hours per day, for a maximum of four days that week. Individuals under eighteen years of age are prohibited from working overtime.

The ambiguous wording sparked questions about whether the reform would truly meet one of the main goals of reducing work hours: guaranteeing millions of workers the right to two days off. These questions even reached the president’s February 12 morning press conference. When asked directly if the reform would ensure two days of rest, the president responded, “The historic demand of workers was for 40 hours, and we are delivering on that.”

Marath Bolaños, Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare, commented that those working an 8-hour day would be entitled to two days of rest. Echoing this sentiment, Sheinbaum clarified at a subsequent morning press conference:

Depending on the nature of the job, it’s not necessarily an 8-hour day, so the two days of rest don’t automatically apply. Some jobs don’t follow an 8-hour schedule; the distribution of hours varies. In some cases, workers even get three days off. Given the diversity of arrangements in the working world, this particular framework was chosen.

Concessions to the Business Sector

Importantly, the wording leaves it up to the employer’s discretion whether a worker is entitled to two days of rest. As the president rightly points out, the labor market is highly fragmented, encompassing various types of contracts and work schedules. For example, at General Motors in Silao, 12-hour shifts spread over four days a week, granting three days off, have been in place for years. In other sectors, people work 8-hour days for six days a week, and in some state sectors, employees have enjoyed a 40-hour, five-day week for years.

The ambiguity in the text isn’t about providing “flexibility” for different work schedules; it’s a concession to the business sector. The employer still retains the freedom to organize and utilize the worker’s time, albeit now with a 40-hour weekly cap. This vagueness leaves millions of workers disillusioned regarding a key expectation: having more time for recreation, personal interests, and family.

Second, while section XI does prohibit overtime for minors, it simultaneously increases the allowable weekly overtime from 9 hours to 12 hours. This is a significant setback, impacting not only the legal limit of time an employer can demand from workers but also potentially affecting how overtime compensation is structured.

Finally, the gradual implementation of the reduced workweek — cutting two hours per year until reaching the 40-hour goal in 2030 — represents a major concession to business owners, who argued that large companies were not prepared for an immediate reduction.

The labor reform has generated repudiation and discomfort among business owners. Beyond the agreement touted by the federal government, hundreds of business owners oppose the implementation and argue that reducing work hours could have a negative impact on productivity, and thus company profits.

The Limitations of Reconciling Opposing Class Interests

Underlying this is the discontent among business owners and the dissatisfaction of millions of workers whose hopes for more free time have been dashed. This reveals the fundamental limitation of trying to reconcile opposing class interests. However progressive the reform may sound, the concessions made to business owners clearly indicate which sector the federal government ultimately prioritizes.

This dynamic not only serves the interests of the Mexican business community but also highlights a deeper problem: economic integration subordinated to the United States. This reform comes in the year the USMCA is set to be renegotiated — a treaty that has deepened a labor model based on exploiting cheap labor through long working hours, cementing Mexico’s status as one of the countries with the longest work hours.

We are far from having won the fight for workers’ right to more free time, and far from the “historic demand of workers” being truly fulfilled. On this path, where the Mexican government positions itself as a counterweight to the right-wing governments emerging in Latin America by promoting reforms with progressive rhetoric, it is crucial that we, as workers, recognize the profound limitations of such policies.

It is time to start trusting more in our own collective strength to win and defend our demands. The example of the Tornel workers’ strike is instructive. They are defending their industry-wide contract in the rubber sector, which, among other things, already includes the 40-hour workweek. It is a key example demonstrating that to achieve a reduction in working hours, we, organized in our workplaces, will have to win it ourselves.

Let’s fight for a true reduction of the workweek: 30 hours of work, distributed as 6 hours per day, 5 days a week.

Originally published in Spanish on March 11 in La Izquierda Diario.

The post Claudia Sheinbaum’s 40-Hour Workweek Reform in Mexico Makes Concessions to Business Owners appeared first on Left Voice.

From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.