(de-news.net) – The proposal to place the possible abolition of the statutory right to part-time employment on the agenda of the Christian Democrats’ forthcoming party convention has been positively received by Federal Family Minister Karin Prien (CDU), who has presented the debate as both timely and legitimate in light of demographic trends and their broader economic consequences. In her assessment, the issue is closely intertwined with questions of women’s economic independence and long-term labor market participation. At the same time, she has underscored that part-time employment continues to play a crucial role for many households seeking to reconcile paid work with caregiving responsibilities, educational commitments, or ongoing professional training. Against this backdrop, she has reiterated that the existing legal entitlement remains a cornerstone of work–family compatibility and has stressed that, in her interpretation, the proposal advanced by the CDU’s Mittelstands- und Wirtschaftsunion (MIT) does not fundamentally challenge this protection. She has highlighted the particular relevance of this point given the persistently high share of women employed on a part-time basis.
Notwithstanding this position, the initiative has encountered broad political resistance. The Free Democratic Party has rejected the proposal in unequivocal terms, portraying it as largely symbolic and ill-suited to addressing underlying structural problems in the labor market. From the FDP’s perspective, more effective incentives for full-time employment would be generated through a combination of significantly improved childcare provision and tangible financial relief, notably in the form of lower taxes and reduced social security contributions. This line of argument rests on the assumption that while a substantial number of employees would be willing to increase their working hours, their decisions are frequently constrained by unreliable or insufficient childcare infrastructure and by limited financial gains when moving from part-time to full-time work.
The debate intensified after the CDU’s economic wing formally submitted a motion for the party congress scheduled for late February, calling for the abolition of the legal right to part-time employment while retaining narrowly defined exemptions for childcare and the care of dependent relatives. In response, representatives of the Social Democratic Party emphasized the broader societal value of part-time work, particularly in light of the significant amount of unpaid care work still disproportionately carried out by women. They argued that political priorities should focus less on restricting existing rights and more on improving the structural conditions that enable full-time employment in practice. In this view, key factors include the reliable availability of childcare, affordable and accessible care services, and the development of more attractive and flexible full-time work models.
Economists see taxation as the core labor supply problem
Support for the proposal has come from employer-oriented economic research institutions, which have argued that the statutory privileging of part-time employment reflects labor market conditions of the early 2000s rather than today’s comparatively tight labor market. According to this assessment, a legal entitlement to part-time work is no longer necessary to protect employees’ interests under current circumstances. Even so, the initiative remains contested within the CDU itself. Regional party leaders have cautioned that curtailing flexibility could undermine efforts to attract and retain skilled workers, maintaining that reliable childcare provision and a stronger care infrastructure constitute the decisive levers for extending working hours, rather than limiting established part-time rights.
Criticism from opposition parties has been more far-reaching and principled. Leaders of the Green Party have accused the CDU’s economic wing of disregarding the everyday realities faced by families and have instead called for a comprehensive policy mix aimed at mitigating skilled labor shortages. Their proposals emphasize expanded all-day schooling, increased childcare capacity, and stronger fiscal incentives for full-time employment. The Left Party has articulated an even sharper critique, warning that restrictions on part-time rights would amount to an erosion of labor protections and could carry adverse health consequences. This concern is particularly pronounced in physically demanding sectors such as cleaning and caregiving, where reduced working hours often serve as a form of self-protection against overstrain. From this standpoint, characterizing such arrangements as “lifestyle” choices is seen as obscuring structural constraints and shifting responsibility onto workers rather than addressing deficits in public investment.
Alongside these political positions, a more differentiated perspective has been articulated by voices within the field of economic policy. While generally endorsing elements of the criticism directed at the current framework, some economists have described the debate over part-time entitlements as secondary to more fundamental shortcomings in the tax and transfer system. They argue that weak net income gains from additional work—especially within middle-income brackets where the withdrawal of benefits can sharply reduce marginal returns—create powerful disincentives to increasing working hours. From this analytical perspective, comprehensive reform of these mechanisms is presented as a more effective means of expanding labor supply than a narrow focus on the statutory right to part-time employment alone.
