Congress rejects the 37.5-hour week

On 10 September 2025, the Congress of Deputies rejected the bill to reduce the maximum working week from 40 to 37.5 hours. The votes against of PP, Vox and Junts were enough to stop the reduction going ahead. It was a measure with great potential impact on companies and workers, and its rejection left the legal framework as it was. For those who had begun to prepare changes to shifts or staffing, the vote meant returning to the starting point.

The debate on working hours combines questions of productivity, work–life balance and costs, and tends to pit very different views against each other. Beyond politics, what matters to companies and workers is to know which rules are in force, what room exists to agree improvements and how to organise time as effectively as possible in each activity. Each sector has its own particularities in hours, shifts and seasonality, and what works in one may be unworkable in another.

What was voted

The bill proposed cutting the maximum working week by two and a half hours. Congress rejected it with the opposition of PP, Vox and Junts, and the cut did not go ahead.

A bill that does not obtain the necessary majority is not approved, and the rule in force continues to apply. That does not prevent the matter from being raised again in future in another format or with other content, or from being negotiated by other routes, such as collective agreements. The underlying question remained open and would stay present in the conversation between companies and workers. For a business owner, the prudent course is to follow the debate without assuming either an imminent change or its definitive abandonment.

What it means for companies

For companies, the working week stayed as it was, although time recording and collective bargaining kept up the pressure. Collective agreements can set shorter hours than the legal maximum, and tracking working time remains an obligation, so companies must continue to comply with both.

A company must know what its collective agreement says about hours, rest periods and overtime, because it is in that setting that much of the real conditions are determined. It is also wise to check that the time-recording system works properly and that the data are kept for the required period. An employment adviser can help to verify both aspects. A periodic review avoids surprises in an inspection and improves staff confidence.

Organising time efficiently

Organising working time efficiently remained a competitive advantage. Planning shifts, reducing unproductive tasks and easing work–life balance can improve both performance and staff retention, regardless of what the law establishes at any given moment. Retaining skilled staff is, moreover, one of the biggest challenges for many companies, and the organisation of time influences it more than is often thought.

Some simple measures are to cut unnecessary meetings, group tasks that need concentration, clarify responsibilities and offer some flexibility in schedules where the work allows. They require no large investment, but they do require attention and persistence. Those who apply them are usually better prepared to adapt to any legal change that comes later. And if the change does not come, the company will have gained in productivity anyway.

The best preparation for any legal change is an organisation that already works well.

This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.