It is an understatement to say that the study on “the stakes and risks of a reduction in working time,” carried out jointly by researchers from the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (Liser) and the University of Luxembourg, was eagerly awaited. Officially presented on Tuesday 25 April by the minister of labour, (LSAP), and its authors, this document, a few hundred pages long, had already caused a lot of ink to flow.

The Luxembourg Employers’ Association (UEL) had said the day before that it would not take part in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour and Employment held just prior to the press conference, as it had not been able to consult the study (or, at least, its main points) beforehand. It thus denounced “” conducted by the current minister of labour.

But the UEL was not the only one to express its discontent. On Tuesday morning, several MPs were questioning the veracity of the rumour that the LSAP parliamentary group had been given an early presentation. This rumour was cut short by Engel in the afternoon, who explained that “only the members of the government had received the study in advance.”

The LSAP seems to be alone

It is true that a proposal to reduce working hours, which has been put forward since February 2022 by Engel, is one of the main themes of the LSAP’s campaign for the legislative elections next October. But the main left-wing party seems to be mostly alone on pushing the proposal, except for Dei Lénk, which has long been positioned on the subject and seems to be following suit.

For their part, the DP, the CSV and the ADR have long said that they are not convinced by such a measure, while the Greens are more nuanced. “We are not in favour of a generalised reduction in working hours. With the current labour shortage, this does not seem reasonable to us. On the other hand, we are in favour of setting up pilot projects in certain sectors,” explained , co-president of the Greens, who mentioned in passing that her party was working on a new model (“longer and differently financed”) for parental leave.

No clear position

Those who hoped that the on “the challenges and risks of the reduction of working time” would provide a clear answer on the usefulness or otherwise of a reduction in working time in Luxembourg can be disappointed. The report--which is based on an analysis of working time reductions observed over the last few decades in countries such as France, Portugal and Japan--does not give a clear-cut opinion on the effects of such a reduction. Indeed, the results are not unanimous, revealing a number of ambiguous effects.

The researchers note, for example, that although a reduction in working time can, in theory, have a positive effect on the work-life balance of employees, this is not systematic. Certain conditions must be met. For example, the fact that this reduction must not be compensated for by an increase in overtime, an idea which Luxembourg companies are very fond of.

Another objective often put forward in connection with the introduction of a reduction in working time is the creation of jobs and the reduction of the unemployment rate. But here again, for researchers, there is no single conclusion that can be drawn. This could indeed lead to such effects. But there are also several risks. For example, if hourly wages were to increase as a result of a reduction in working time, labour costs would also increase for companies. Companies could then use less labour or even work overtime instead of hiring. This would be counterproductive.

In their conclusions, the Liser researchers explained that this study would need to be extended to refine the debate. Further studies are not yet required, according to Engel.

This story was first published in French on . It has been translated and edited for Delano.