As the global community accelerates its efforts to remain competitive in the advanced tech sector — spanning from AI and semiconductors to quantum technologies — innovation has emerged as the key measure of influence. For numerous organizations, this demand has manifested as increased workloads coupled with more demanding workplace norms. They are confronted with a genuine challenge: they cannot afford to reduce their efforts while their global counterparts intensify their drive for success.
Upon learning of the prevalence of the rigorous “996” work ethic — entailing a work schedule from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days per week, totaling 72 hours — extending from China into Silicon Valley, I began to contemplate the diverse approaches to working hours and workplace dynamics within the tech industry across different nations. My particular interest was in comparing these conditions with those in South Korea, my current location.
In South Korea, the established workweek consists of 40 hours, with an allowance for up to 12 hours of overtime, typically compensated at a rate of 1.5 times the standard wage or higher. Employers failing to comply with these regulations are subject to penalties, including fines, potential imprisonment for executives, and civil liabilities.
The 52-hour workweek, initially implemented in 2018 for larger firms with over 300 employees and public institutions, was progressively expanded to encompass all businesses, becoming fully operational on January 1, 2025.
Earlier in the year, South Korea introduced a unique extended work program, permitting employees to exceed the 52-hour weekly threshold, subject to both employee agreement and governmental authorization, up to a maximum of 64 hours. For critical technology areas like semiconductors, approval durations were temporarily extended from three to six months, although local news sources indicate limited adoption among companies. Looking forward, the South Korean government intends to curtail these special exceptions and strengthen regulations on working hours, even as some legislators suggest that the current guidelines are adequate, according to reports.
TechCrunch engaged with several tech investors and founders in South Korea to discuss the implications of the 52-hour workweek on their business operations and R&D initiatives, as they strive to compete with global competitors.
“The 52-hour workweek presents a notable challenge when considering investments in high-tech sectors,” stated Yongkwan Lee, CEO of Bluepoint Partners, a venture capital firm based in South Korea, in a conversation with TechCrunch. “This is especially pertinent when investing in internationally competitive industries such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. Labor-related issues are particularly intricate in these domains, where founders and their teams frequently encounter heavy workloads and prolonged hours during crucial developmental stages.”
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 27-29, 2025
Bluepoint often makes early-stage investments before the technologies are fully realized or the products are market-ready. Lee pointed out that stringent limitations on working hours could potentially slow the achievement of significant business milestones.
In South Korea, 70.4% of startup employees indicated their willingness to work beyond the 52-hour limit each week, provided they receive suitable compensation, according to local reporting.
Bohyung Kim, CTO of LeMong, a South Korean startup supported by LG Uplus, which offers AI solutions to over 13,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the food and beverage industry, views the country’s 52-hour workweek more as a restriction than a form of protection.
“Engineers are tasked with developing practical solutions to complex issues,” Kim explained. “Our work goes beyond merely completing prescribed tasks within set hours; it involves applying creativity and intense focus to address challenges and generate new value. When inspiration strikes or a significant technical advance occurs, the perception of time fades. A system that compels you to halt at such moments disrupts the flow and can diminish overall effectiveness.”
Kim further noted that while concentrated, short-term efforts are vital as project deadlines near or when fine-tuning essential algorithms, strict legal constraints can sometimes create obstacles, varying with the nature of the engineering role. “Even within engineering, manufacturing roles differ from R&D positions,” Kim clarified. “In manufacturing, productivity is directly related to working hours, necessitating schedules that prioritize industrial safety. Overtime should also be appropriately compensated.”
When questioned about workplace flexibility, Huiyong Lee, co-founder of LeMong, a maker of comment management software, suggested that calculating a monthly average would be more practical than strictly adhering to the nation’s 52-hour weekly maximum. He emphasized that work intensity frequently fluctuates based on the R&D phase and project schedules in advanced technology firms.
“For companies like ours, extensive development efforts are often needed for about two weeks leading up to a product launch, followed by a decrease in workload once the product is stable,” Lee explained. “A system allowing monthly flexibility would enable us to work roughly 60 hours per week pre-launch and 40 hours post-launch, maintaining a 52-hour average while ensuring efficient operations,” Lee added. “I also think it’s important to consider different standards for deep tech and R&D-driven companies. Moreover, for startups with fewer than 10–20 employees, establishing more adaptable criteria to suit their specific operational demands is crucial.”
Kim also pointed out a clear correlation between performance and working hours, noting that high-achieving team members often tend to work longer. However, instead of seeking rewards for the additional time, these top performers are more focused on achieving outcomes and rapidly advancing within the company.
“Engineers are significantly more motivated to engage deeply when their contributions are acknowledged, whether through performance bonuses, stock options, or recognition of their technical expertise,” Kim stated. “In high-tech, R&D, and IT sectors, as well as in globally competitive firms where technical skills are essential, decisions regarding flexible work hours should be determined by market dynamics.”
Another venture capitalist based in Seoul, who invests in startups, minimized the impact of the 52-hour workweek limit on investment decisions.
“Currently, there don’t seem to be major concerns. While it is always challenging to predict shifts in labor laws or enforcement, many venture-backed companies today do not closely monitor employees’ working hours. As I understand it, companies are not currently required to provide formal proof of compliance with the 52-hour weekly limit.”
The VC noted that if an employee were to file a complaint, “the lack of detailed time records could lead to compliance questions. However, most R&D or deeptech firms typically employ highly motivated professionals who manage their time effectively, making such instances relatively rare.”
The more significant issue likely resides in more labor-intensive industries, such as logistics, delivery, or manufacturing, where a large segment of the workforce earns wages near the minimum. “In these areas, the 52-hour workweek regulation can substantially increase labor expenses due to mandatory overtime compensation and paid time off. Consequently, sustaining productivity and achieving economies of scale can become more challenging for businesses operating with narrow margins,” the investor explained.
How other countries work
To put South Korea’s 52-hour limit into a global perspective — and to understand why its deep tech companies feel pressured by competing demands — it is beneficial to examine how other major tech hubs regulate working hours.
In Germany, the UK, and France, typical workweeks generally span from 33 to 48 hours. In both Australia and Canada, the standard workweek is 38 and 40 hours, respectively, which includes mandatory overtime pay, balancing labor rights with operational flexibility.
In the U.S., the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes a standard 40-hour workweek. Non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay at one-and-a-half times their regular rate, without any cap on the total hours worked. (In California, regulations require double-time pay only under specific overtime conditions.)
In China, the standard work schedule also involves 40 hours per week, or 8 hours per day. Overtime pay is set at increased rates: around 150% of regular wages on weekdays, 200% on weekends, and 300% on public holidays. In Japan, the standard workweek consists of 40 hours, with limitations of 45 hours of overtime each month and 370 hours annually under normal circumstances. Employers exceeding these limits may face fines and administrative sanctions, similar to other countries.
Singapore’s workweek is somewhat longer, at 44 hours, with a maximum of 72 overtime hours each month. Spread evenly, this equates to roughly 62 hours per week. Overtime pay rates are comparable: 1.5 times for weekdays, 2 times for rest days, and 3 times for public holidays.
South Korea’s 52-hour cap positions it midway along this spectrum, stricter than the U.S. and Singapore but more adaptable than much of Europe. Ultimately, for deep tech founders competing internationally, the crucial question is not solely about the hours but whether rigid weekly limits can accommodate the demanding, variable workflows typical of early-stage R&D.
