By Víctor Báez Mosqueira
Former Secretary General of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA)
In May 2025, the Paraguayan Parliament initiated a public consultation regarding a legislative proposal submitted by a national senator, which seeks to establish a 40-hour workweek. Should the law be enacted, it would represent the first substantive modification in 89 years to the legal framework governing working time, since the 8-hour workday was first legalized in 1936. Under Paraguay’s initial labor code, a 48-hour workweek has remained the legal standard to this day.
From the standpoint of labor sectors and various civil society actors, the proposed reform is perceived as a positive and long-overdue initiative. However, for this right to be effectively implemented and to achieve its intended benefits, it is essential to approach the issue not only in isolation, but within the broader socioeconomic and institutional context.
Historical Foundations
The historical struggle for the 8-hour workday dates back to the 19th century and is marked by intense opposition from employers and governments. This resistance led to the persecution, imprisonment, and even execution of union leaders, such as the Haymarket Martyrs in Chicago. In their honor, the Socialist Congress held in Paris in 1889 proclaimed May 1st as an international day of labor action to advocate for this right.
The main argument against reducing working hours historically centered on the alleged threat to national economies and business viability. However, the gradual implementation of shorter workdays disproved these predictions. On the contrary, the reform yielded significant economic benefits and laid the groundwork for social progress.
France was the first country to legislate the 8-hour workday in 1906 for workers in the postal, telephone, and telegraph services. Following World War I, amid widespread poverty and economic instability, the International Labour Organization (ILO) was established. Its first Convention, adopted in 1919, enshrined the 8-hour workday as a standard for all member states—a provision that has since been progressively ratified worldwide.
The global economic crisis of 1929, a direct consequence of the prevailing ultraliberal economic model, precipitated the rise of fascism and Nazism, culminating in World War II.
Keynes’ Vision of Reduced Working Time
In his 1930 essay Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, British economist John Maynard Keynes envisioned that within a century—by the year 2030—technological advancements and sustained productivity growth would enable societies to meet their needs with only 15 hours of work per week (or three hours per day). The fact that this forecast has not materialized is not due to a failure of technological progress, but rather to the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite.
In 2019, American economist Jeffrey Sachs highlighted that approximately 2,000 individuals held 10% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), which was estimated at $110 trillion in 2024. In other words, $11 trillion is controlled by this small group, while over 800 million people suffer from hunger globally.
Similarly, economist Ladislao Dowbor, a professor at Brazilian universities, illustrates this disparity by dividing the global population into groups of four (2 billion groups total), and distributing global GDP evenly among them. Each group, he calculates, would receive approximately $4,500 per month—underscoring that poverty and inequality stem not from a lack of resources, but from systemic wealth concentration.
Structural and Institutional Considerations
While the reduction of working hours would undoubtedly bring economic, social, and quality-of-life benefits, it is critical to recognize that even the current 8-hour workday is often not respected in Paraguay. This widespread noncompliance is facilitated by governmental inaction and the severe shortage of labor inspectors.
In June 2024, the ILO’s Committee of Experts summoned the Paraguayan government before the Committee on the Application of Standards due to the country’s failure to enforce labor laws. At the time, Paraguay had only 19 labor inspectors—13 located in Asunción and the Central Department, and just 6 across two additional departments. The remaining 17 departments had no inspectors at all.
Equally important is the relationship between individual labor rights—such as the 8-hour workday—and collective labor rights, namely the rights to unionize, engage in collective bargaining, and strike. Despite formal legal recognition, these collective rights remain severely restricted. The legacy of authoritarian labor policies continues: individual rights are acknowledged on paper, but unions are actively discouraged, collective bargaining is rare, and strikes are often repressed. Workers are thus left individually exposed to the disproportionate power of employers and the state, further exacerbated by a judiciary whose independence and efficiency remain questionable.
A case in point: the Paraguayan banking sector once operated under a 32-hour workweek as a result of collective bargaining agreements. Despite the reduction in working time, banks continued to post substantial profits. However, the erosion of union strength—due both to employer strategies and the passivity of certain labor leaders—eventually led to the dismantling of these agreements, with no effective limits on working hours today. Outsourcing has further contributed to the degradation of labor conditions.
The Case for a Shorter Workweek
Predictable opposition to the 40-hour workweek is likely to arise from business sectors and conservative political factions. However, many countries—particularly in Latin America—have already implemented or are transitioning toward shorter working weeks. While European cases like Germany (where the metalworkers’ union negotiated a 28-hour workweek in 2018) are often cited, several Latin American countries offer relevant examples.
Venezuela and Ecuador have legally recognized the 40-hour workweek, while Chile and Colombia are gradually reducing work hours. Brazil and Uruguay currently operate under a 44-hour workweek, and numerous collective bargaining agreements in the region establish even fewer hours, often with wage preservation or improvement.
Empirical evidence consistently shows that reductions in working time, when properly enforced, lead to increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, and improved overall performance. Additionally, shorter workweeks foster significant social benefits: they generate formal employment opportunities, reduce unemployment and informality, and promote better work-life balance.
Furthermore, several countries—including Iceland, New Zealand, and Japan—are experimenting with four-day workweeks. The argument that Paraguay cannot afford a reduction in working hours due to poverty is a fallacy. What truly impoverishes the country is the institutional favoritism toward entrenched elites.
Conclusion
For the 40-hour workweek to yield tangible economic and social benefits in Paraguay, its legal adoption must be accompanied by effective enforcement mechanisms. This includes the guarantee of collective labor rights, the establishment of a transparent and incorruptible labor inspection system, and, critically, the development of an independent, timely, and accessible judiciary.
Only by ensuring the full and equitable implementation of this reform can Paraguay take a meaningful step toward labor justice and inclusive development.