The government is pushing the introduction of the 4.5-day workweek as a key task. In this trend, a forecast came out that Korea's annual actual working hours could fall to 1,739 hours by 2030. This is similar to the government's goal of 'entering the 1,700-hour range by 2030.' The Ministry of Labor sees Korea's actual working hours in 2024 as 1,859 hours. The report said the big reasons Korea's working hours decreased were the introduction of the 5-day workweek and the 52-hour weekly cap. It means that as the share of long working hours went down, total working hours also came down together. But Korea still has relatively long working hours among OECD member countries. The report said the full-time centered structure of working 8 hours a day from Monday to Friday is still strong. It also explained that compared with Europe, the use of long vacations and temporary leave is lower, and the working hours system is rigid. The report said that to reduce working hours more, a simple cap regulation alone is not enough. It means productivity at companies must rise, while vacation, work styles, and the wage system must also change together. The recent guideline from the Ministry of Labor to prevent misuse of the inclusive wage system is also connected to this trend.
원문 보기
If you start with the numbers in the article, 1,739 hours in 2030 is closer to 'a society that works a little less long' than to a '4-day workweek'
If you only look at the original article, the number 1,739 hours catches your eye first. But this number does not mean everyone will immediately get Friday off. It is closer to a forecast that Korea's annual actual working hours (the hours really worked) could go down a little more than now.
The starting point is 1,859 hours in 2024. If it goes from here to 1,739 hours in 2030, that means Dasan Call Center (Seoul) hours less per year. Just looking at the number, it seems big, but in daily life, it is about 10 hours a month and about 2.3 hours a week. If you understand this, you can get a sense of whether this news is a 'revolutionary change' or an 'extension of steady reduction.'
So the key point of this article is not 'the 4.5-day workweek is confirmed,' but the bigger question of how to reduce working hours more in Korea. From now on, to understand that question, we need to look step by step at what the 4.5-day workweek exactly is and how it is different from the current system.
1,739 hours does not mean everyone works 4 days a week.
The key point is whether a structure is possible where 'overtime and long working hours slowly decrease.'
The 5-day workweek, 52-hour workweek, and 4.5-day workweek are systems that answer different questions
| Category | 5-day workweek | 52-hour workweek | 4.5-day workweek |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key question | How many days do you go to work | Up to how many hours can you work | How is it less than 5 days and 40 hours a week |
| Standard | Work 5 days from Mon to Fri | Legal 40 hours + 12 overtime hours | Usually around 35~36 hours a week or a half-day cut |
| Legal status | Already a standard system | The upper limit is clear by law | Still not one unified legal system |
| Workplace operation | Mainly 5-day full-time work | Mainly focused on managing the overtime limit | Many models like half-day Friday, every-other-week day off, and a 36-hour system |
| Key issue | More holidays and wage adjustment | Special industries and burden at workplaces | Wage protection, productivity, and recording actual working hours |
If you change a yearly Dasan Call Center (Seoul)-hour decrease into weekly, monthly, and daily time, you can really feel it
Even the same number is much easier to understand when you change it into daily life units.
Working hours in Korea did not decrease all at once
The current discussion about the 4.5-day workweek is actually the next step in a long trend of reducing work hours.
Step 1: The 48-hour workweek era
For a long time, Korea relied on a growth model of working long hours. During industrialization, long work hours were seen like a strength, and workplace customs were stronger than the law.
Step 2: The 44-hour workweek in 1989
With a revision of the Labor Standards Act, legal work hours were reduced a lot for the first time. From this time, the idea that 'working less long is normal' slowly started to settle in.
Step 3: The 40-hour workweek law in 2003
This was the change that became the legal foundation for the 5-day workweek. From 2004, it was applied first in large companies and the public sector, and later expanded step by step to small and medium-sized companies.
Step 4: The 52-hour workweek in 2018
The maximum limit of 52 hours per week, made by adding 12 overtime hours to the legal 40 hours, became clear. If you know this, you can understand why the discussion about long work hours in Korea is often connected more to 'limit rules' than to the 'number of days off.'
Step 5: Now, the discussion about the 4.5-day workweek
Now, the key point is not only 'how long people work' but also how to work in a less rigid way. So the 4.5-day workweek is closer to a discussion about changing the structure of work hours than simply increasing days off.
Why does Korea still remain a country with long work hours
If you compare countries, Korea's position becomes clearer. But the OECD also says that absolute comparison of annual work hours between countries needs caution because calculation methods are different. The numbers here are reference values to roughly understand the position and trend.
The problem is not the number '40 hours per week' but the way everyone is tied to that number
The rigidity of work hours mentioned in the article sounds a little difficult. Simply put, it means a structure made so that many people work in similar time slots and in similar ways. In Korea, the standard is still 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, full-time work, and the pattern of adding overtime to this is still strong.
An interesting point is that the average work hours people want was found to be 36.7 hours per week. The system standard is 40 hours, but what people want is shorter. Why does this gap happen? It is because options for designing time in different ways, like part-time work, shorter regular full-time jobs, and staggered commuting hours, have not spread widely.
Also, this rigidity does not appear in the same way for everyone. Manufacturing and small and medium-sized companies can more easily lead to longer work hours because of delivery deadlines and staff shortages, and office workers and large companies may officially introduce flexible work, but the real feeling of flexibility can be weak because of meeting, reporting, and face-to-face work culture. If you know this, you can understand why saying 'just change the law and it's done' is far from reality.
It is not only about 'whether people work long hours' but also about 'whether it is hard to work in different ways.'
In the end, the discussion about the 4.5-day workweek is connected to how much this rigidity can be loosened.
There is a vacation system, so why can't people use it freely
| Item | Appearance in law and system | How it feels in real life | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to use annual leave | Workers can request the timing | It is easy to delay because of pressure from the boss and team schedules | It shows the gap between rights and real experience |
| Average annual leave | In 2021, an average of 17.03 days was given | Actual use is 11.63 days | Even if the system exists, people cannot use it all |
| Reasons for not using it | There are not many limits in the system | Pressure from bosses and coworkers, too much work, lack of replacement staff | Workplace habits and staffing structure are the key factors |
| Places with a big gap | In principle, it is the same for everyone | It is harder for non-regular workers, small workplaces, and the lodging and restaurant industry | How much people feel shorter working hours is different by industry |
If working hours are reduced, will productivity always fall
| Case or view | Result | What changed together | Key point for understanding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iceland 4-day workweek experiment | Productivity stayed the same or improved | Work redesign, focused work | Shorter hours do not always mean lower results |
| Japan Microsoft | Productivity per employee increased by 39.9% | Fewer meetings, better work efficiency | Office and knowledge work has a lot of room to improve |
| Careful view from Korean manufacturing | Possible short-term drop in productivity | Burden of running equipment and shift operations | It is hard to apply the same way to on-site workers |
| OECD common summary | Not an automatic effect | Need time records, job redesign, and changes in management methods | If only the system changes, results may not come |
Why the inclusive wage system is mentioned next to the 4.5-day workweek
If you understand this part, you can start to see why stories about 'free labor' always follow news about work hours.
Step 1: Even if legal hours are reduced, real working hours may stay the same
Even with the 40-hour week or the 52-hour week, overtime, weekend response, and contact after work can still remain. Real working hours are not the hours written on paper, but the total amount of actual time and energy used.
Step 2: The inclusive wage system is a structure that can easily hide that gap
Inclusive wage system (a method that puts overtime, night work, and holiday pay into the monthly salary in advance) has originally been allowed only as an exception. But if this method spreads widely, overtime does not show clearly, and it becomes hard to check 'how much more work was done.'
Step 3: That is why the 'free labor' problem happens
If time records are weak, and extra compensation becomes unclear because the allowance is said to already be included, real overtime can be treated like free work. That is exactly why guidelines to prevent abuse and misuse of inclusive wages come out together with plans for the 4.5-day workweek.
Step 4: Real reduction is possible only when time records and the wage system change together
In the end, the key is not just making one more day off. It is making it visible how much work was done and reducing that time. If you understand this, from now on you will see 'how real working hour records and the wage system change' as more important than just 'introducing the 4.5-day workweek.'
So this news should be read more as 'improving the work hours system' than 'more days off'
If you look this far, the picture becomes a little clearer now. The 4.5-day workweek is not just about taking Friday afternoon off. It is an attempt to slowly change Korea's long-hours and full-time centered structure in a different direction.
So when you look at related news from now on, you only need to check three things. First, are total working hours really decreasing? Second, are wages not being cut, and is overtime not being hidden? Third, is it a design that can work not only for office workers at large companies, but also for small and medium businesses, manufacturing, and services? These three questions help you tell the difference between policy promotion and real change.
In short, the 1739-hour outlook is not a promise that 'everyone will soon live like they have a 4-day week.' Instead, it is closer to a mid-term checkpoint showing how much the Korean labor market can move toward working less long and less rigidly. But as the OECD says, annual working hours also have differences in calculation methods by country, so more important than the international ranking itself is looking together at the direction of reduction and the content of system changes.
Rather than the name '4.5-day workweek,' check how many total working hours there are per week.
If it also talks about inclusive wage, annual leave use, and exceptions by industry, it becomes easier to see if it is realistic.
We will tell you how to live in Korea
Please give lots of love to gltr life