China’s 996 vs Korea’s 52-Hour Work Week: Tech Sector Clash

The global race for technological supremacy in fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and quantum computing has placed immense pressure on innovation cycles, directly influencing workplace cultures and labor policies worldwide. This dynamic creates a fundamental tension between the need for intense, focused development periods and the growing emphasis on regulated working hours and employee well-being. A comparison between China’s notorious “996” culture, demanding 72-hour work weeks, and South Korea’s legislated 52-hour work week reveals sharply contrasting philosophies in managing tech sector productivity.

South Korea mandates a standard 40-hour workweek, permitting up to 12 hours of paid overtime, typically at 1.5 times the normal rate or higher. Companies that fail to comply face significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment for executives. The 52-hour workweek system was first applied to large corporations and public institutions in 2018 and was fully extended to encompass all businesses by the start of 2025.

This year, the government introduced a special program allowing employees to work beyond the 52-hour limit, reaching up to 64 hours per week, provided both the worker consents and government approval is secured. For critical deep tech industries such as semiconductor manufacturing, the approval window was temporarily doubled from three to six months. Despite this, reports indicate very few companies have utilized the option. Future government plans involve scaling back these special exemptions and tightening regulations, even as some legislators argue the current rules are adequate.

The impact of these regulations on business competitiveness is a topic of intense discussion. Yongkwan Lee, CEO of Bluepoint Partners, a South Korean venture capital firm, stated that the 52-hour workweek is a challenging factor in investment decisions for globally competitive sectors like semiconductors and AI. He explained that labor challenges are particularly complex in these fields, where founding teams often endure heavy workloads during crucial growth stages. For early-stage investments made before a technology is fully mature, strict hour limits can potentially slow down the achievement of key business milestones.

A local survey revealed that 70.4% of startup employees would be willing to work an additional 52 hours per week if they received appropriate compensation. This highlights a potential disconnect between regulatory frameworks and the motivations of some workers.

Bohyung Kim, CTO of the AI startup LeMong, shared that his engineers often find the 52-hour system more restrictive than protective. He described engineering work as a creative process focused on solving complex problems, where breakthroughs can happen at any time. “When an idea strikes or a technical breakthrough happens, the concept of time disappears,” Kim noted. “If a system forces you to stop at that moment, it breaks the flow and can actually reduce efficiency.” He emphasized that while intense focus is vital near project deadlines, rigid legal limits can interfere, especially in R&D roles distinct from production-line manufacturing.

Huiyong Lee, co-founder of LeMong, proposed a more flexible, monthly averaging system. He explained that deep tech companies experience fluctuating workloads, with intense development for about two weeks before a product launch, followed by a calmer period. A flexible system would allow for 60-hour weeks before launch and 40-hour weeks afterward, maintaining a 52-hour average while supporting operational needs. He also advocated for differentiated standards for R&D-focused companies and more flexible criteria for small startups with fewer than 20 employees.

Kim also observed a correlation between performance and hours worked, with high-performing team members often investing more time. However, he stressed that these individuals are primarily driven by recognition, performance bonuses, stock options, and career advancement, not merely by logging extra hours. He believes that in high-tech and globally competitive firms, decisions about flexible work schedules should be guided by market logic.

Another venture capitalist in Seoul downplayed the regulation’s immediate impact on investments, noting that many venture-backed companies do not strictly track employee hours and that there is no current requirement to submit formal proof of compliance. He suggested that the real challenge lies in more labor-intensive sectors like logistics and manufacturing, where the 52-hour rule can significantly raise labor costs due to mandatory overtime, making it harder for low-margin businesses to maintain productivity.

To contextualize South Korea’s position, it is useful to examine global workweek standards. In Germany, the UK, and France, standard workweeks range from 33 to 48 hours. Australia and Canada operate on 38 and 40 hours, respectively, with mandatory overtime pay. The United States follows a 40-hour standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act, with no cap on total hours but requiring time-and-a-half for overtime for non-exempt employees.

China’s official work schedule is 40 hours per week, with overtime paid at 150% on weekdays, 200% on weekends, and 300% on public holidays. Japan also has a 40-hour standard, capping overtime at 45 hours per month. Singapore’s workweek is slightly longer at 44 hours, allowing up to 72 overtime hours per month, which could equate to roughly 62 hours per week.

South Korea’s 52-hour cap positions it in the middle of this global spectrum, stricter than the U.S. and Singapore but more flexible than many European nations. For deep tech founders operating in a fiercely competitive international arena, the central question remains whether any rigid weekly limit can truly accommodate the intense, unpredictable, and flow-dependent nature of pioneering research and development.

(Source: TechCrunch)