Twenty EU states have changed working time rules after the pandemic, but only five have started to regulate algorithmic control.

Twenty member states of the European Union have introduced or updated rules regarding working time and the organization of work between 2021 and 2024, against the backdrop of the expansion of telework and flexible programs after the pandemic. The regulation of technologies that automatically set tasks, schedules, or evaluations has lagged significantly behind: Eurofound identifies only five states that have begun to address algorithmic control of working time.

In short, the reforms adopted in 20 states have targeted the duration and organization of the schedule, flexibility of hours, compressed weeks, timekeeping, disconnection, and the protection of employees with caregiving responsibilities. Fifteen states have modified rules regarding flexible schedules, and 11 have introduced or updated requirements for recording hours worked. Belgium, Greece, Portugal, and Poland have allowed or tested forms of compressed weeks. Greece, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, and Spain are the only states where Eurofound has identified national interventions regarding algorithmic scheduling, automated monitoring, or transparency of the systems used for platform workers. In Malta and Spain, rights regarding algorithmic transparency have been introduced. Croatia has established conditions for the intervals in which platform workers can receive tasks and the right to refuse requests sent outside of these intervals. None of the analyzed states have redefined the overall concept of working time for fragmented digital work, and most do not have specific national rules regarding the management of employees through algorithms.

The reforms analyzed by Eurofound were adopted during a period in which the schedule and workplace have become more flexible. The pandemic accelerated telework, and the use of phones, applications, and digital platforms has made it possible to organize work outside the office and at different times than the traditional schedule.

The changes have given some employees more control over their hours and workplace, but they have also created new difficulties. Work can extend into free time, overtime can be harder to identify, and constant availability through email and messaging applications can reduce actual rest periods.

Since 2021, 20 member states have responded with new acts, amendments to labor codes, or national agreements. The reforms have not followed a single model, and their scope varies from one country to another.

Belgium introduced a package in 2022 that allows, among other things, the concentration of the full schedule into four days. Cyprus modified the rules regarding predictable working conditions, while the Czech Republic expanded employees' ability to organize their hours through a written agreement with the employer.

Denmark updated legislation regarding the working environment, and Estonia recognized the situation of employees who, by the nature of their job and by agreement with the employer, can independently decide when and where they work.

Greece modified several components of working time, including telework, compressed weeks, and the organization of work in companies that operate continuously. Some businesses may introduce a sixth working day, under the conditions provided by legislation and with applicable additional pay.

Croatia revised its labor law in 2023, and Ireland introduced the right for parents and caregivers to request flexible arrangements, including telework, adjusted schedules, reduced hours, or compressed weeks.

Italy used a national protocol for flexible work in the private sector, while Lithuania has successively adopted amendments regarding parents, caregivers, overtime, and schedule organization.

Luxembourg introduced rules for employees with caregiving responsibilities and for the use of digital tools. Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovenia have also modified various components of the schedule, telework, or timekeeping.

Fifteen states have addressed through reforms the possibility of modifying the regular schedule. Measures include flexible start and end times, individualized programs, temporary reductions in working time, and the right for certain categories of employees to request changes in the organization of work.

In many cases, these rights are specifically aimed at parents and individuals who care for children or dependent adults. The employer must analyze the request, but the existence of the right to request flexibility does not automatically mean that it must be approved in every situation.

Some states have extended autonomy beyond these categories. From January 2025, employees in the Czech Republic can agree in writing with the employer to set their own schedule, respecting limits on shift duration, breaks, and night or weekend work.

Romania has introduced the possibility of individualized schedules, with the agreement or at the request of the employee. These must still respect the normal duration of work and rules regarding overtime.

Four states have allowed or tested compressed weeks. A compressed week does not necessarily mean a reduction in the total number of hours, as the full schedule is distributed over fewer days.

In Belgium, employees can concentrate the 38 hours into four days. In Greece, a full 40-hour schedule can be split into four days of ten hours each, by agreement between the employee and employer.

Portugal has conducted a pilot project for a four-day week in the private sector. Poland subsequently launched a program through which companies and organizations can voluntarily test shorter weeks or reduced-hour days.

Discussions about reducing the overall duration of work have had more limited results. During the analyzed period, Greece was the only state identified as having adopted a change in the statutory limit that allows for the extension of the schedule in certain activities with continuous operation.

In other states, there have been projects, political initiatives, or negotiations that were not yet finalized during the covered period. Eurofound separates these debates from the reforms that have actually come into force.

A second important area has been the recording of working time. Eleven states have introduced or updated rules regarding timekeeping: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, and, according to the detailed synthesis, Hungary by updating the conditions applicable to certain records and reference periods.

In most of these states, the rules target all main categories of employees or working formulas. In Cyprus, the identified requirements apply to teleworkers, while in Hungary there are exceptions for certain flexible arrangements.

Timekeeping becomes more difficult when work is split into multiple intervals, performed from home, or continued through messages after the end of the schedule. A timekeeping system must be able to identify the hours actually worked, without turning into disproportionate monitoring of the employee.

Digital tools can help measure time, but they can also record computer activity, online presence, typing speed, or application usage. Eurofound separates the need for timekeeping from intrusive monitoring of behavior and performance.

Regulation becomes even less developed when decisions are made or prepared by algorithms. Algorithmic management uses data to organize, distribute, monitor, and evaluate work, sometimes through automated decisions, other times through recommendations sent to managers.

An algorithm can decide which courier receives an order, at what time a driver must be available, how many tasks must be completed, or which employee is considered more efficient. The system can modify activity in real-time, depending on demand, location, evaluations, and previously collected data.

These tools are often associated with digital platforms, but they also extend into logistics, production, warehousing, commerce, and services. They can streamline the distribution of tasks, but they can also make the schedule less predictable and increase the pace of work.

Eurofound shows that only Greece, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, and Spain have begun to address at the national level the implications of algorithmic scheduling and automated control over working time.

In Malta and Spain, the reforms provide for forms of algorithmic transparency for platform workers. Employees or their representatives must receive information about the systems that influence task distribution and working conditions.

Transparency does not necessarily mean access to the complete computer code. It may involve explaining the types of data used, the main factors influencing decisions, and the effects that the system may have on scheduling, evaluations, or access to tasks.

Croatia has introduced more concrete rules for contracts of platform workers with irregular schedules. These must specify the intervals in which the employer can request activity, the notice period, and the minimum volume of paid work.

The worker can refuse a task sent outside the established interval without penalty. The rule attempts to limit the situation in which the person is formally free but must remain connected for a very long time to receive work.

Greece and Portugal have introduced initial references to the use of artificial intelligence in time management and in monitoring staff. Eurofound describes these interventions as an early stage, not as a complete framework for all forms of algorithmic management.

Most states did not have specific national regulations. Protections may come from general rules regarding working time, health and safety, data protection, employee information, or non-discrimination, without directly addressing how an algorithm sets the schedule.

The General Data Protection Regulation limits certain decisions based solely on automated processing and grants individuals rights over the use of their data. However, these rules do not address all issues related to working hours, availability, tasks, and continuous monitoring.

For platform workers, the time between two orders may not be recognized or paid, even if the person must remain connected and ready to accept a request. The algorithm may favor workers available during peak hours or those who quickly accept tasks.

The freedom to choose when to connect may thus be limited in practice by the need for income and how the platform distributes orders. The worker seemingly controls the schedule, while the system influences the intervals in which the activity is profitable.

The report identifies a difference between employee-driven flexibility and employer-driven flexibility. In the first case, the worker can adapt hours to personal needs. In the second, the schedule is variable to respond to the company's demand, without real control from the employee.

Algorithms can intensify the second form by rapidly changing tasks and the volume of work. A schedule may be flexible from the company's perspective but unpredictable for the person who must adhere to it.

Eurofound finds that reforms in member states have more frequently addressed the right to request telework, compensation for costs, and timekeeping than algorithmic control. Eleven states have regulated access or the right to request telework, seven have modified conditions regarding costs or mobility, and only five have intervened regarding platforms, algorithms, or artificial intelligence.

No identified national reform has changed the general definition of working time to explicitly include new forms of fragmented activity. Regulations continue to largely rely on the traditional distinction between work and rest.

This separation becomes harder to apply when the employee works in short intervals throughout the day, receives tasks through an application, or responds to professional communications between personal activities.

Neither the adaptation of the schedule to climate change nor the transition to a cleaner economy appeared as a distinct area in the analyzed reforms. Eurofound did not identify national norms that generally organize working time based on extreme temperatures or other climate risks.

The analysis covers legislation and collective agreements adopted between 2021 and 2024 in the 27 member states and Norway. Information was collected through Eurofound's network of national correspondents and was subsequently used in the final report on the quality of working time in the EU.

The document that inventories the reforms is a working paper and has not undergone the full editorial and review process applied to Eurofound's final report. It, however, provides the comparative basis for identifying states, reforms, and areas still insufficiently regulated.

At the EU level, the Working Time Directive establishes an average limit of 48 hours per week, including overtime, as well as minimum requirements regarding breaks and rest. The Directive on Work-Life Balance grants parents and caregivers the right to request flexible arrangements.

European rules regarding platform workers also introduce protections related to algorithmic management. Member states must transpose and apply these requirements, which may expand in the coming years the number of national systems that directly address automated control of work.

Eurofound believes that legislation has not fully adapted to the fragmentation of working time, the overlap between work and rest, and the expansion of automated management. Future reforms must clarify how to record periods of availability, workers' rights to information, and the limits of digital surveillance.