International Labor Day: Rethinking the Future of Work Across DACH Borders

The public discourse around the future of work often gravitates toward extremes – whether fears of mass job loss driven by artificial intelligence or the promise of a frictionless, borderless global workforce. Yet, as our contributors emphasize, reality is far more nuanced.

Kathrin Bürger challenges a fundamental assumption underpinning many of these debates: “The core issue is that we are currently unable to meet the future demands of work within the existing legal framework, nor does the prevailing mindset of employees and employers adequately reflect what lies ahead.” She further notes that “we are often not even fully aware of precisely what will be required, or to what extent,” highlighting a structural uncertainty that goes beyond technology itself.

Artificial intelligence, in particular, has become the focal point of both anxiety and fascination. However, as Elisa Iacono explains, the narrative has already begun to shift: “A few months ago, a lot of people were afraid to use AI at work… Now, AI is everywhere in our workflows… and that’s amazing.” This rapid change illustrates not only the speed of technological adoption but also the adaptability of the workforce itself.

Crucially, several contributors challenge one of the most persistent misconceptions: that AI will simply replace jobs. As Peter Rösen points out, “the real transformation is about redesigning how work is done.” Rather than eliminating roles, AI is reshaping them. Elisa Iacono reinforces this: “AI isn’t really replacing jobs – it’s replacing tasks associated with a job.” Markus Löscher echoes this structural view, emphasizing that jobs are bundles of tasks that evolve over time.

Yet the challenge is not purely technological - it is also legal. Kathrin Bürger underscores this tension in Germany, where “labour and employment law… is largely designed without flexibility in mind — neither for employers nor employees,” warning that frameworks already ill-suited to current conditions will be even less capable of addressing future needs.

Peter Rösen warns that companies must integrate AI into existing frameworks such as working time rules, co-determination, and data protection without stifling innovation. Those who treat compliance as an enabler rather than a constraint will ultimately gain a competitive advantage.

At the same time, assumptions about a fully globalized workforce remain disconnected from legal realities. Pascal Brinkmann notes that “regulation, taxation, immigration and local employment law still draw very clear boundaries.” Ninja Buks similarly challenges the idea that location no longer matters: “Work ‘in the cloud’ does not make labor law obsolete; it turns it into the architectural plan for sustainable flexibility.” ZEILER adds a critical nuance: the future of work is not borderless - it is “differently bordered,” with significant legal implications for employers who fail to anticipate them.

Kathrin Bürger reinforces this point by highlighting the tension between legacy expectations and emerging workforce values: organizations must “contend with the legacy expectations of work - such as physical presence and office attendance - whilst simultaneously responding to the demands of a Generation Z workforce that values flexibility and feels little fundamental loyalty to any single employer.”

The New Equation: Flexibility Meets Structure

If there is one area where transformation is most visible, it is in the evolving balance between flexibility and control.

The pandemic accelerated remote and hybrid work, but organizations are now moving beyond binary thinking. Flexibility is no longer opposed to control; it must be structured.

Ninja Buks describes this shift as a move toward “outcomes with clear guardrails,” where flexibility in time and location is granted provided that collaboration, client service, and team development are maintained. In this model, control is no longer about presence, but about transparent rules and sustainable performance.

Peter Rösen observes a similar trend through what he calls “framework regulation”: clear boundaries combined with operational autonomy. Companies that over-regulate risk suffocating flexibility, while those relying on informal arrangements create legal uncertainty. “True flexibility requires structure,” he notes.

ZEILER reinforces this approach: flexibility must be “contractually anchored, not culturally assumed.” In Austria, legal frameworks already allow significant flexibility - but only when properly documented.

From an organizational standpoint, the emphasis is shifting toward outcomes rather than presence. Pascal Brinkmann describes a model based on “purpose and performance,” enabled by digital tools but grounded in accountability. This reflects a broader move away from time-based supervision toward value-based contribution.

However, this evolution introduces complexity. Alexandra Knell highlights that flexibility is increasingly a legal and compliance issue. “Structured flexibility” requires formal policies, documentation, and monitoring—no longer informal arrangements.

Bürger points to one of the most significant structural obstacles: working time regulation. In Germany, “we are still constrained by a Working Hours Act that does not accommodate flexible working arrangements,” a framework she considers already outdated and unlikely to meet future demands.

Markus Löscher identifies hybrid work as the emerging equilibrium: “a model with great flexibility within boundaries,” combining operational efficiency with talent attraction.

When Practice Outruns Regulation

As organizations innovate, legal frameworks often lag behind - creating underestimated risks.

Employment contracts are a clear example. Many were drafted for a pre-pandemic world and fail to reflect current practices. Elisa Iacono notes the growing disconnect between formal agreements and operational reality.

Kathrin Bürger adds that this misalignment is compounded by structural enforcement risks. She highlights “an underrated risk in freelance work” linked to audits conducted by the German Pension Authority, warning that in cases of misclassification, “retroactive social security contributions may be imposed for a period of up to 30 years,” alongside potential criminal liability and immediate reclassification.

Cross-border work amplifies these challenges. Even limited remote arrangements can trigger foreign social security obligations, permanent establishment risks, and the application of foreign employment law.

The assumption that remote work is “free” flexibility is particularly misleading. ZEILER warns that cross-border remote work can immediately create legal exposure. Ninja Buks confirms that overlapping legal regimes make employment law more complex, not less.

Another underestimated risk lies in AI deployment. Peter Rösen highlights a “triangle of regulation” in Germany: co-determination rules, EU AI Act obligations, and GDPR requirements. Many companies - especially SMEs - fail to recognize that all three apply simultaneously.

Similarly, Ninja Buks points to the growing risks associated with algorithmic decision-making in HR. Employers remain fully responsible for AI-driven decisions, while opaque systems complicate compliance with anti-discrimination and co-determination rules. “The ‘black box’ behind HR decisions will increasingly be challenged in litigation,” she warns.

Kathrin Bürger also draws attention to upcoming regulatory shifts, notably the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which will introduce “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions, including fines,” going significantly beyond Germany’s existing framework and expanding both reporting obligations and individual rights.

ZEILER adds that under Austrian law, AI systems capable of monitoring employees require mandatory works council consent. Failure to comply can invalidate entire HR measures retroactively.

Finally, workforce classification remains a structural risk. Markus Löscher emphasizes that the reclassification of independent contractors as employees can threaten entire business models.

Talent Retention: The True Drivers

In a volatile environment, retaining talent has become both more critical and more complex.

While compensation remains essential, it is no longer sufficient. Peter Rösen is clear: “Fair compensation is the baseline. If it’s not adequate, nothing else matters.” But beyond that, retention depends on reliability, leadership, and development.

Kathrin Bürger emphasizes that retention “relies primarily on an HR strategy rather than a legal one.” Organisations that succeed are those that “foster an environment where employees feel heard, respected, and safe to raise concerns or voice disagreement.”

Consistency emerges as a central theme. Pascal Brinkmann highlights “clarity and consistency,” while ZEILER stresses that perceived inequality in treatment quickly erodes trust.

Ninja Buks identifies four key differentiators: predictable fairness, embedded compliance culture, genuine employee voice, and respectful handling of conflicts and exits. “How an employer treats those who leave often shapes the decision of others to stay,” she notes.

Elisa Iacono captures the psychological dimension: when flexibility is suddenly reframed as a privilege during difficult times, trust erodes. “It’s not the physical person who leaves first but their mindset and motivation.”

Kathrin Bürger adds that high-retention organisations “invest meaningfully in training, mentorship, and clearly defined career pathways,” while internal mobility is “a particularly powerful lever.” She also stresses that organisations that micromanage or fail to offer flexibility “consistently underperform on retention metrics.”

Markus Löscher adds that credibility is critical. Organizations must align their promises with actual practices—particularly regarding flexibility and development.

From a legal perspective, Alexandra Knell emphasizes that clarity and fairness not only enhance satisfaction but also reduce disputes, reinforcing organizational stability.

Toward a More Adaptive Framework

Looking ahead, both regulation and management must evolve.

Elisa Iacono advocates moving beyond location-based thinking: “The physical location should not be the main factor for a job.” The focus must shift to how work is performed.

Pascal Brinkmann calls for broader systemic innovation, including portable benefits that follow individuals across roles and employers.

Several contributors highlight the need to modernize legal frameworks. Kathrin Bürger is unequivocal: “Definitely the German Working Time Act” should be redesigned. She explains that the current system, based on “a model of an industrial age” with strict daily limits, is incompatible with modern work. While courts now require working time tracking, she argues the priority should be “to increase self determination in order to increase flexibility,” not to weaken protection but to adapt it to contemporary realities.

Ninja Buks points to working time regulation as a key priority: current systems remain rooted in industrial-era models and are misaligned with hybrid, project-based work. She advocates a model combining strict health protections with greater autonomy and clearer digital availability rules.

Alexandra Knell similarly argues that working time regulations must reflect asynchronous work and global collaboration.

Peter Rösen proposes rethinking co-determination rules on technical monitoring systems, which have become overly broad and bureaucratic in the digital age. He suggests refocusing on actual monitoring impact rather than mere technical capability.

ZEILER, meanwhile, highlights procedural inefficiencies in employment litigation, particularly in Austria, where termination cases involving protected employees can take years. Streamlining these processes would better balance employee protection and operational needs.

Collective Responsibility

The future of work is not shaped by technology alone, nor by regulation in isolation. It emerges from the interaction between innovation, legal frameworks, and human behavior.

What stands out from the DACH region is not a single model, but a shared set of principles: adaptability, transparency, consistency, and legal awareness.

The organizations that will succeed are those that recognize a simple but demanding reality: Flexibility without structure creates risk, while regulation without adaptability stifles progress. Navigating between the two is no longer optional - it is the defining challenge of the future of work.

Thank you to our 2026 great contributors from Germany and Austria, and their inspiring words:

Pascal Brinkmann, Partner, strait.legal, Düsseldorf: “More flexibility ≠ less complexity”

Ninja Buks, Lawyer, EPP Rechtsanwälte Avocats, Baden-Baden: “The future of work demands flexible, borderless collaboration, and lawyers who turn complex labor regulation into enablers, not obstacles”

Kathrin Bürger, Managing Partner, Seitz, Munich: “Germany needs to adapt to the future of work — it then will have the audacity to invent it”

Elisa Iacono, Marketing manager, HGF Limited, Munich: “Feel like the future of work is building trust and support rather than control”

Alexandra Knell, Lawyer, Dr Alexandra Knell, Vienna: “Flexibility will define the future of work—but legal complexity will define how far it can go”

Markus Löscher, Office Managing Shareholder, Littler, Vienna: “The idea that AI will eliminate most jobs is flawed - jobs are bundles of tasks, and AI typically reshapes tasks rather than removing entire roles”

Hans Georg Laimer & Lukas Wieser, Partner, Melina Peer, Senior Associate, Zeiler Rechtsanwälte, Vienna: “Done right, smart labor law is not a constraint — it is your strongest competitive advantage”

Peter Rösen, Lawyer, Kanzlei Rösen, Altenberge: “Good labor regulation sets the framework - and trusts employers, works councils and employees to shape the rest”