Europe
German industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
Some of Germany’s biggest industrial bosses are reigniting the debate over longer working hours.
Nearly 40 years ago, German metalworkers secured a 35-hour working week by winning one of the most contentious disputes in the country’s post-war history.
According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), prominent companies, including Mercedes-Benz and toolmaker Stihl, have demanded that employees work 40 hours a week without additional pay, arguing that high labour costs are undermining the country’s competitiveness.
Speaking to the Handelsblatt newspaper earlier this summer, Martin Brudermuller, chairman of the supervisory board of Mercedes-Benz Group, said, “By international standards, labour here has become too expensive,” arguing that the country had lost its “productivity advantage over key competitors.”
“We must seriously consider returning to a 40-hour working week,” Brudermuller said.
Labour costs in Germany are among the highest in the EU. Hourly labour costs in the manufacturing sector stand at 49.50 euros, which is 47% above the EU average of 33.70 euros and triple the cost of 15.60 euros in Hungary.
Although German employees are more productive than their Eastern European counterparts, unit labour costs, which measure worker productivity, have risen significantly faster since 2023 compared with previous years, according to a study by the IMK, a think-tank funded by German trade unions.
The calls to return to a 40-hour week have come ahead of industrial unions starting their latest wage negotiations in October.
The 35-hour working week was phased in over more than a decade following a dispute in 1984.
In that dispute, tens of thousands of metalworkers in former West Germany staged a seven-week strike to secure shorter working hours.
Today, the 35-hour working week is the collectively agreed standard for approximately one-fifth of German employees, concentrated in sectors such as automotive, engineering, iron, and steel. Across all sectors, the average weekly working time is 37.8 hours.
Germans work fewer average annual hours than employees in almost all other OECD economies. However, this comparison is heavily skewed by the country’s high rate of part-time employment.
What has turned a decades-long debate into an urgent issue of competitiveness is the deepening crisis in the German manufacturing sector.
Having peaked in late 2017, German industrial production has fallen by more than 15% as manufacturers have been hit by back-to-back energy price shocks stemming from anti-Russia sanctions, intensifying competition from China, US tariffs, and the profound shift towards electric vehicles.
According to Marcus Berret, global managing director of the consultancy Roland Berger, high labour costs were once offset by Germany’s other attractive features for employers, such as political stability, strong infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and dense industrial clusters.
However, these advantages have begun to erode as the cost gap with countries in Eastern Europe and beyond has widened:
“When it comes to labour costs, we are not talking about a 10% or 20% gap [with rival economies]. In some cases, we are talking about a three- or fourfold difference.”
So far, manufacturing employment in Germany has declined at a much slower pace; despite the sharp drop in output, approximately 6.5 million people continue to work in the sector.
However, Berret predicts further job losses:
“If I piece together the information I have from individual companies, I estimate that the number of people employed in manufacturing will drop to below 5 million.”
Currently, around 12,000 to 15,000 manufacturing jobs are being lost each month, and major employers such as Volkswagen have already indicated that many more positions in Germany will need to be eliminated.
Economists argue that longer working hours may become inevitable for employees who manage to keep their jobs.
Martin Werding, a member of the German Council of Economic Experts, says that the mechanisms manufacturers once used to compensate for high labour costs, such as relying on temporary agency workers who could be laid off during periods of weak demand, are no longer sufficient.
“Today’s challenges have grown so large that this flexibility is no longer enough,” Werding said.
A shift from 35 to 40 hours without additional pay would increase working time by 14% without changing weekly wage costs. Werding added that the debate over working hours is “far beyond symbolic politics.”
With more than 2.2 million members, IG Metall, Germany’s largest and most powerful trade union, rejects the claim that factories are bound by a rigid 35-hour working week constraint.
Nadine Boguslawski, head of collective bargaining at IG Metall and a member of the Mercedes supervisory board, stated that agreements with employers already provide companies with significant flexibility to increase or reduce working hours.
“A rigid 35-hour working week, as is sometimes portrayed, simply does not exist in the companies I know,” Boguslawski said.
She added that IG Metall remains open to finding tailored solutions for struggling companies.
At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental disagreement between unions and employers over whether longer working hours destroy jobs by distributing a fixed amount of work among fewer people, or protect jobs by making German factories more competitive.
Boguslawski argued that one of the main reasons IG Metall fought hard for the 35-hour working week in the 1980s was to “bring more people into employment” by sharing available work among more people:
“If you reverse this and increase weekly working hours to 40, you generally need fewer workers, regardless of whether those additional hours are paid or unpaid.”
However, economists such as Werding argue that the volume of available work is not guaranteed and depends on the competitiveness of firms.
They suggest that if lower labour costs per unit of output make German factories more competitive, companies can retain production and jobs that would otherwise move abroad or disappear.
It remains unclear whether the push for longer working hours will make it onto the negotiating agenda between unions and employers this autumn.
Gesamtmetall, the metal industry employers’ association, declined to comment on calls to abandon the 35-hour working week, citing “internal deliberations.”
Berret worries that the political and public debate has not yet caught up with the scale of the crisis facing German industry.
“Many people are living in a different reality regarding what lies ahead of us,” Berret said.
Europe
EU divisions deepen over who should negotiate with Vladimir Putin
As the US continues to mediate talks between Ukraine and Russia, the debate within the EU over who will sit at the table is intensifying.
Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine scheduled for next week in Abu Dhabi, mediated by the US, will take place without European participation.
There are currently no expectations of a breakthrough, but this has not prevented infighting within the EU over representation.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni added fresh friction to the debate yesterday, 5 November, stating that the EU gives “the impression of a Europe moving in different directions.”
In a letter to European Council President António Costa, she argued that the 27 EU leaders must unite behind a single representative before the end of the year.
According to Rapporteur, an “alphabet soup” of diplomatic formats, such as the E2, E3, E5, or the CoW (Coalition of the Willing), is competing to take centre stage in discussions concerning the future of Ukraine.
Facing elections next year, Meloni has long pushed back against the assertive stance adopted by the E3 format, which brings together the UK, France, and Germany, in their efforts to represent European interests in ending the war and shaping the continent’s future security architecture.
Last month, the Italian leader said:
“If France, Germany, and Great Britain believe that within that renowned E3 format they can achieve more alone than we can all achieve together, then they should at least do so in the name of everyone, with an official mandate from all parties.”
An EU diplomat remarked: “When we speak of the E3, we are talking about geopolitical influence, military strength, and financial power. This does not mean Italy is excluded, but Rome clearly believes it must have a seat at the table.”
Meloni has the backing of Poland, another major military power and the only other large EU country sharing a border with Ukraine.
However, her counterpart Donald Tusk has been less explicit about seeking a direct role in top-level talks.
“As you know, we have many different formats,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw on Thursday. “We have a clear position as the EU and as the Coalition of the Willing. I am fully engaged in these processes.”
Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, however, proved considerably more outspoken. “The last thing we want is Western Europe dealing with Russia while bypassing Eastern Europeans,” Sikorski said, drawing parallels to the 1930s and the 1945 Yalta Conference:
“You cannot exclude Eastern Europe and Scandinavia from these talks. We are roughly 120 million people. Finland borders Russia, Norway borders Russia, the Baltic states border Russia, and Poland borders both Russia and Ukraine.”
Berlin argues that the E3 remains the natural representative group, given that Germany, France, and the UK are the three strongest military powers capable of underwriting future security guarantees for Ukraine.
Like Italy, Poland favours the E5 configuration, which would allow Warsaw and Rome to take part.
Yet Sikorski also floated another leadership lineup to meet Putin: António Costa, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
Sikorski argued that under EU treaties, the Costa-Kallas pairing holds the legal authority to represent the bloc.
Speaking to journalists in Lisbon on Thursday, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said: “I agree with Prime Minister Meloni; we must not speak with different voices. We must remain united in stating that these matters sought by Russia require Europe’s decision as well.”
Meloni is not alone in pointing out cracks in the EU’s posture. Last week, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a close ally of Meloni on the European Council, questioned a phone call made to Putin by the leaders of Finland and Norway, asking what they truly hoped to achieve.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre defended the conversation as a useful step taken in full coordination with Kyiv.
According to an EU official, the pair would be “more than happy” to discuss appointing a special envoy for Ukraine.
The official stressed, however, that the call was not “a bid” to position Stubb and Støre for the role.
Regardless, the war is unlikely to end this winter, even as Europeans explore fresh mechanisms to finance Ukraine.
“We must be realistic about peace talks and extremely cautious regarding Russia’s true intentions,” Donald Tusk said. “During the winter months, Putin may have less motivation to reach an agreement.”
Europe
EU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
European Union citizens should be prepared to meet their basic needs independently for the first 72 hours of an emergency until public services can organize relief, according to new guidelines.
Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Equality, Crisis Management and Preparedness, presented the non-binding advisory guidance at the European Civil Protection Forum.
In her remarks on the initiative, Lahbib said: “When a disaster strikes, the first hours can be vital. Every European must know what to do, how to protect their family and how to help others. Preparedness begins in our homes, our schools and our communities.”
The Brussels leadership explained that the new measures are prompted by Europe facing increasingly frequent and complex crises.
Under the recommendations, the European Commission advised citizens to stockpile essential supplies and keep pre-packed emergency grab bags ready.
These steps aim to ensure that individuals can address their primary necessities independently during the first three days of a crisis, before state aid is mobilized.
The guidelines also encompass three additional priority areas: preparing children for emergency situations, making safety measures accessible to individuals with disabilities, and ensuring the public is better informed about potential threats.
Citing the 2001 founding anniversary of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Commission also proposed designating 23 October as “EU Preparedness Day” each year starting in 2027.
EU member states are preparing for an extensive hybrid attack scenario that could result in casualties, according to a Politico report citing European diplomats and officials.
The report noted that divisions have emerged within the EU over the bloc’s security role and whether its initiatives duplicate the functions of NATO.
According to the same report, ambassadors from the 27 EU member states held closed-door meetings focusing on deploying emergency response teams and allocating resources from EU funds to an affected country.
Following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine in 2022, both the EU and NATO intensified their preparations for a potential military confrontation with Russia.
In its “White Paper on European Defence – Preparedness 2030”, presented in March 2025, the European Commission identified Russia as one of the primary threats to European security.
The document outlines plans to boost defence production and improve air and missile defence, unmanned systems, and military mobility.
Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have begun drafting contingency action plans for a potential Russian attack, including measures for the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The three Baltic states decided in May 2025 to cooperate in the field of civil defence.
Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, head of the German Army, also stated that Berlin must be prepared for a Russian attack by 2029 or earlier.
On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in a statement in September that Moscow is not preparing for war with Europe.
Putin stated that Moscow has no such plans and that there are no justifications or real reasons to escalate the situation with Europe.
Criticising the European stance, Putin described rhetoric from European nations regarding a Russian threat and the necessity of preparing for war as a “provocation” and a “deliberate incitement of the situation.”
The Kremlin also noted that the EU is turning into a “military-political-economic bloc” by spending vast budgets to weaponize its economies.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that statements by EU nations regarding the risk of war with Russia are driving European rearmament, which could ultimately become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
In earlier remarks, Lavrov assessed that “if Europe attacks the Russian Federation, it will be a completely different war, and it will be over very quickly.”
Europe
Paris meeting between Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage unscheduled
Plans for a meeting in Paris between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and French far-right National Rally (RN) figurehead Marine Le Pen remain uncertain.
Farage’s planned visit to France, which he announced for October as part of an effort to establish ties with figures on the European right before the end of the year, has yet to be officially scheduled by Le Pen’s camp.
Speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive inter-party relations, four National Rally officials familiar with Le Pen’s schedule said no visit to the party leader had been planned.
Multiple party figures said they saw no urgency in drawing media attention to relations with Reform UK or to the migration pact signed in September.
One official noted that the “costs and benefits” of holding a meeting with Farage needed to be weighed.
Political circumstances for both parties have shifted markedly since the prospect of a meeting with Le Pen, widely viewed as the candidate most likely to win the first round of the 2027 French presidential election, was first mooted.
Jordan Bardella, the National Rally’s second-in-command, attended Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham in early September as guest of honour.
Bardella and Farage announced an agreement proposing the return to France of all migrants reaching the UK through unauthorised Channel crossings in small boats.
The proposal triggered a backlash across different political factions in France, where critics questioned why the country should accept the return of asylum seekers.
Internal problems also emerged within Reform UK during the Birmingham conference.
Reform UK, which had maintained its polling lead over the Labour Party led by Andy Burnham, who took over as prime minister from Keir Starmer, was shaken by an undercover investigation published on the eve of the conference.
The development, which raised fresh questions over the party’s financial structure, led to the resignation of Farage’s two most senior aides.
Labour subsequently recovered in the polls, while a rise in the Conservative Party’s share of the vote began to challenge Reform UK’s second-place standing.
The initial announcement that Farage would travel to France to meet Le Pen before the end of October was also made at the Birmingham conference in early September.
Referring to a trip to Paris after Bardella delivered a speech in English, Farage said: “The only downside is I think they’re going to invite me to Paris, and I will have to speak French, but never mind, we’ll get round it.”
However, no official invitation has been confirmed.
As October drew to a close and it became clear that Farage would not pay a return visit to the National Rally’s conference in Orleans, a senior Reform UK official maintained that the meeting was on the calendar for this year.
The leadership in Paris does not confirm that schedule.
The four officials familiar with Le Pen’s plans said they were unaware of any scheduled visit for Farage before Christmas. One of Le Pen’s advisers suggested that a meeting could instead be offered with Bardella, whose standing inside the party has weakened in recent months.
Questioning the merits of the party leader appearing alongside Farage, another adviser to Le Pen said: “We need a bit more time to think through the costs and benefits.”
Thibaut Francois, an official with the National Rally’s European Parliament delegation, said that “regular contacts” with Reform UK continued and that the two parties would meet “very soon”, though he did not clarify whether that would take place this year.
A senior Reform UK official said: “Reform’s primary objective is to become battle-ready for British elections; parading on the international stage right now would add nothing to the UK message.”
Charles-Henri Gallois, an economic adviser to Bardella, argued that there was no need for further contact between the two parties, asserting that the migration agreement was “ready and waiting to be implemented” should both parties come to power.
“There is no need to discuss this further,” Gallois told Politico. “Critics of the agreement do not understand migration flows. This agreement is entirely in France’s interest.”
With French voters wary of a UK-style exit, Le Pen has long distanced herself from efforts to pull France out of the European Union.
Jean-Yves Camus, a far-right specialist at the Jean-Jaures Foundation think-tank, said: “Farage still supports Brexit, whereas Le Pen abandoned the idea [of Frexit] because it was too frightening for French voters. Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterms will also reinforce Le Pen’s distrust of Trumpism and its European counterparts.”
The level of internal support within the National Rally for the migration deal signed by Bardella and Farage was a subject of debate even as it was being concluded.
Since the party conference in September, Bardella’s position has continued to weaken following antisemitism allegations, which he has firmly denied.
Before reaching the agreement with Bardella, Farage had proposed launching “the largest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War” to push small boats back to the French coast.
A figure close to Le Pen told Politico at the time: “Why would we take [them] back to France if they are not French?”
-
Diplomacy4 days agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe1 week agoMerz visits Asia to seek new markets for German defence firms
-
Russia1 week agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD drops Dexit to back single market in new Europe strategy
-
America2 weeks agoPentagon prepares US bases for 90-day siege in global war plan
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization
-
Interview2 weeks ago“The AfD is an expression of internal contradictions within German big capital”
-
Europe2 weeks agoSerbia opposition wins snap vote as Vucic concedes defeat
