AI strains work: employees want fewer hours, CEOs demand more

The new labor conflict: AI as a catalyst

Artificial intelligence is not only transforming production processes; it is also redefining labor expectations in an antagonistic way. According to Randstad data collected by Genbeta, 74% of Generation Z consider work-life balance as the main factor when choosing a job in 2025, the highest percentage among all generations. For the first time in two decades of the Workmonitor report, this balance surpasses salary as a priority for all workers. This generational shift is not sudden: since the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work and flexibility have become central demands, especially among younger people, who prioritize mental health and personal time.

However, at the other extreme, numerous CEOs of technology companies — especially in Silicon Valley — are pushing for six or seven-day workweeks, reminiscent of the Chinese 996 model (9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, six days a week). A Genbeta report notes that AI startups in the United States and Europe demand grueling schedules from their employees under the threat of being replaced by the very technology they develop. Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind compete fiercely for talent and breakthroughs, creating an atmosphere of urgency that, for some leaders, justifies unlimited workdays. This trend contrasts with China, where the government has begun to regulate the 996 model, deeming it illegal in 2021, while the West seems to be adopting it, according to the same source.

Why is this happening?

The paradox arises from the opposite perception of AI: employees see it as a tool to reduce their workload and gain personal time, while managers interpret it as an excuse to intensify productivity. Automating repetitive tasks allows more to be done in less time, but instead of translating into shorter workdays, many companies demand that extra time to increase output. A 2023 Stanford University study showed that workweeks exceeding 55 hours reduce productivity and increase errors, contradicting the logic of CEOs. Moreover, the fierce competition in the AI sector — where companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google DeepMind compete for talent and breakthroughs — creates an atmosphere of urgency that, for some leaders, justifies unlimited workdays. China, which originated the 996 model, is stepping back from that practice, while the West seems to be adopting it, according to the same source. Historically, the introduction of new technologies has generated similar tensions: during the Industrial Revolution, workers fought for a reduction from 14-hour to 8-hour workdays, a process that took decades. Today, AI could accelerate or reverse those advances depending on business decisions.

Consequences and risks

This tension has profound implications:

• Talent turnover: employees who value balance will seek companies with flexible policies, increasing brain drain in companies that demand extreme hours. According to a 2024 LinkedIn report, 40% of tech workers consider leaving their job if there is no flexibility, and AI startups already report turnover rates above 25% annually.
• Mental health: burnout and work-related stress could skyrocket, with costs for employees and companies. The WHO estimates that depression and anxiety related to work cost the global economy $1 trillion annually in lost productivity. In the tech sector, burnout syndrome affects 60% of workers, according to a 2023 Blind survey.
• Regulation: governments could intervene to limit workdays or require transparency in AI use, as already happens with the EU AI Act, which classifies AI systems by risk and requires labor impact assessments. Additionally, California is debating a law that would ban non-compete clauses and limit mandatory overtime in tech companies.
• Real productivity: studies show that excessive workdays reduce long-term efficiency, contradicting the logic of CEOs. A Harvard University analysis found that productivity per hour decreases by 30% after 50 hours per week, and that six-day workweeks do not generate a net increase in output.
• Impact on innovation: chronic fatigue reduces creativity and the ability to solve complex problems, exactly what AI companies need. A 2022 Nature study indicated that teams with flexible schedules generate 20% more patents than those with rigid hours.

What readers should know

This is not an abstract debate: it directly affects those who work in technology and those who consume its products. AI is not neutral; its implementation reflects power decisions. Employees must negotiate collectively so that automation benefits everyone, not just top management. Meanwhile, investors and consumers can pressure companies to adopt ethical work-hour standards. History shows that technological advances can improve quality of life if managed with social vision. For example, the 40-hour workweek was achieved after decades of union struggle and government regulation. Today, unions like the AFL-CIO in the United States are already including clauses on AI in their collective contracts, demanding that automation not be used to increase workload. Additionally, initiatives like the '4-day workweek' have shown success in countries like Iceland and the UK, where productivity was maintained or improved. Readers should inform themselves about their companies' policies and support those that prioritize well-being. Technology should serve people, not the other way around.

"AI should not be a threat to rest, but an opportunity to redesign work," concludes Genbeta's analysis. This phrase summarizes the challenge: leveraging AI to create more humane jobs, not to intensify exploitation. The future of work will depend on how we resolve this contradiction.