The reduction of the maximum workweek from 48 to 40 hours is not a new topic in Mexico. It has been on the public and business agenda for years. Since 2023, we saw legislative attempts that did not move forward, creating scenarios of uncertainty:
When would it take effect?
Would it be immediate?
What would happen to the overtime regime?
Today, the context is different. There is a clear initiative from the Executive Branch establishing gradual implementation from 2027 to 2030. That gradual approach is the axis that changes the conversation. We move from speculation to planning.
| Year | Maximum Weekly Hours |
| 2026 | 48 hours |
| 2027 | 46 hours |
| 2028 | 42 hours |
| 2029 | 42 hours |
| 2030 | 40 hours |
For companies, the difference between an abrupt reduction and a phased reduction is substantial, as certainty regarding the path allows modeling impacts, redesigning shifts, projecting labor costs, and adjusting processes in advance.
Let us be clear: reducing hours without reducing salary increases the cost per hour worked.
If a company wishes to maintain the same production level with fewer available hours, it will have to compensate through additional hiring, payment of overtime, or substantive improvements in productivity.
The economic impact exists. Denying it would not be serious.
However, what changes today is the possibility of cushioning it over time. The reduction is not immediate; it begins in 2027 and concludes in 2030. That transition window allows the adjustment to be distributed across several fiscal years, incorporate operational efficiencies, and reconfigure organizational structures without generating sudden disruptions.
The reform is frequently approached as an issue exclusively for human resources or labor costs. That is a conceptual mistake.
It is not only a payroll issue. It takes operational engineering.
The reduction of the workweek is a cross-functional project. It involves:
Process engineering
Production planning
Shift redesign and automation
Talent management
Payroll systems and regulatory compliance
Particularly in the export manufacturing sector, where operations run under high delivery-time requirements, the critical variable is productivity per hour.
The companies that are most prepared are not necessarily those that will experience the least impact; they are those that have already begun simulating scenarios and piloting shift adjustments. Others, with a more conservative stance, are waiting for the formal publication in the Official Gazette to activate their planning mechanisms. Both positions are legitimate, but what matters is that there is now a clear regulatory basis to work from.
The reform not only reduces the workweek; it also adjusts the logic of overtime.
Currently, the first nine overtime hours are paid at double rate and, starting from the tenth hour, at triple rate. Under the projected scheme toward 2030, the maximum of 12 overtime hours per week will be divided into:
Up to six hours paid at double rate
Six additional hours paid at triple rate
Once that threshold is reached, labor activity may not be extended further.
For companies, this requires greater discipline in production scheduling. Overtime ceases to be a permanently flexible valve and becomes a limited resource that is more expensive in its final segment.
In small workforces, any percentage increase in personnel has an amplified effect. Moving from five to seven workers, for example, represents a 40% growth in structure. In large organizations, the adjustment can be diluted through economies of scale; in SMEs, the margin for maneuver is smaller.
Here, gradual implementation once again becomes decisive. It allows smaller companies to work on efficiency improvements before the full impact materializes. Technical support and training will be key to preventing the adjustment from translating into informality or contraction.
Yes, there is concern among foreign investors, especially in corporate headquarters located in countries where they are not accustomed to double-digit wage increases or substantial modifications to working hours.
The recurring questions our clients ask are: Is Mexico becoming more expensive? Is this trend sustainable? Is it still competitive?
My answer, based on comparative analysis of hourly cost in dollars, is that Mexico maintains an attractive position in the global environment, even considering the trajectory toward 2030. When we project hourly labor cost and compare it with other relevant manufacturing jurisdictions, we remain competitive.
In addition, investment decisions do not rely exclusively on labor cost. Factors such as regional integration, supply security, proximity to the U.S. market, and logistical resilience (elements associated with productive relocation) weigh significantly in the balance.
The so-called “nearshoring” was never solely an equation of cheap labor. It was, above all, a geo-economic strategy.
From my perspective, the key is not to debate whether the change should occur (the international trend toward more balanced workweeks is clear and supported by organizations such as the ILO), but how we implement it without eroding competitiveness or formal employment.
The initial reduction of two hours will imply operational pressure. There are no shortcuts. But it can also become a catalyst for modernization: more efficient processes, better use of time, greater investment in technology, and an organizational culture more oriented toward results than physical presence.
I am optimistic. Not naïve, but optimistic.
Gradual implementation gives us something that was scarce in previous labor reforms: predictability. And in the business world, predictability is a strategic asset.
The target toward 2030 has been set, and now the challenge is to execute with intelligence, discipline, and long-term vision. If we do it correctly, Mexico can move toward a more balanced workweek without sacrificing its position as a global manufacturing platform.