As the global race in deep tech accelerates—spanning AI, semiconductors, and quantum computing—innovation has become a key driver of influence. This has led many organizations to adopt more demanding workloads and high-pressure work environments. However, these companies face a significant challenge: they cannot afford to slow down while international competitors are intensifying their efforts.
When I read about the spread of the “996” work schedule—9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, totaling 72 hours—from China to Silicon Valley, I became interested in how different nations manage work hours and workplace norms in the tech sector. I was particularly interested in how these practices compare to those in South Korea, where I currently reside.
In South Korea, employees typically work 40 hours per week, with up to 12 hours of overtime allowed, usually compensated at 1.5 times or more the standard wage. Employers who breach these regulations may face fines, imprisonment of executives, and civil penalties.
The 52-hour workweek policy, initially implemented in 2018 for large firms with more than 300 staff and public organizations, was gradually expanded to cover all businesses and became fully effective on January 1, 2025.
Earlier this year, South Korea introduced a special program permitting employees to exceed the 52-hour weekly cap—with both worker agreement and government authorization—up to 64 hours. For industries like semiconductors, the approval window was temporarily extended from three to six months, though local media indicate only a handful of companies utilized this option. Looking forward, the government intends to reduce these exceptions and further tighten work hour rules, despite some lawmakers arguing that current standards are already adequate, according to reports.
TechCrunch interviewed several South Korean tech investors and founders to understand how the 52-hour workweek impacts their operations and R&D as they compete on a global scale.
“The 52-hour workweek certainly presents a hurdle when considering investments in deep tech fields,” said Yongkwan Lee, CEO of Bluepoint Partners, a South Korea-based venture capital firm, to TechCrunch. “This is especially true in globally competitive industries such as semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing. Labor issues are particularly intricate in these fields, where founders and teams often endure heavy workloads and extended hours during crucial growth periods.”
At Bluepoint, early-stage funding is often provided before the core technology is fully developed or products are market-ready. In this scenario, Lee pointed out that strict work hour restrictions could slow the achievement of important business goals.
According to local sources, 70.4% of startup employees in South Korea said they would be willing to work an extra 52 hours per week if they received appropriate compensation.
Bohyung Kim, CTO of LeMong—a South Korean startup supported by LG Uplus that supplies agentic AI solutions to over 13,000 food and beverage SMEs—remarked that the 52-hour workweek often feels more like a limitation than a safeguard.
“Engineers are tasked with devising practical answers to complex issues,” Kim explained. “Our responsibilities go beyond ticking off tasks within set hours. The job requires creativity and deep concentration to tackle problems and generate new value. When inspiration hits or a breakthrough occurs, time becomes irrelevant. Being forced to stop due to regulations can disrupt momentum and actually lower productivity.”
Kim further noted that while periods of intense focus are necessary as deadlines approach or when refining crucial algorithms, inflexible legal limits can sometimes hinder progress, depending on the engineering role. “Even among engineers, those in manufacturing have different needs from those in R&D,” Kim said. “Manufacturing output is closely tied to hours worked, so schedules must consider industrial safety. Overtime should also be compensated fairly.”
When discussing workplace flexibility, Huiyong Lee, co-founder of LeMong, which develops comment management tools, suggested that calculating a monthly average would be more practical than strictly following the 52-hour weekly rule. He observed that workload intensity often fluctuates with the stage of R&D and project deadlines in deep tech firms.
“For companies like ours, there’s often a need for concentrated development in the two weeks leading up to a product launch, after which the workload decreases as the product stabilizes,” Lee said. “A monthly flexible system would let us work around 60 hours per week before launch and 40 hours after, averaging 52 hours and maintaining efficiency,” he continued. “I also think it’s important to consider different standards for deep tech and R&D-focused firms. For startups with fewer than 10–20 employees, more adaptable rules are crucial to meet their unique needs.”
Kim also pointed out a clear connection between performance and hours worked. Top performers often put in more time, he said. However, instead of seeking extra pay, these high achievers are driven by results and rapid advancement within the company.
“Engineers are much more engaged when their contributions are acknowledged, whether through bonuses, stock options, or recognition of technical achievements,” Kim said. “In high-tech, R&D, and IT sectors, as well as in globally competitive companies where technical skills are crucial, decisions about flexible work hours should be guided by market realities.”
Another venture capitalist based in Seoul, who invests in startups, downplayed the significance of the 52-hour workweek on investment choices.
“Currently, there don’t seem to be any major issues. Although it’s hard to predict future changes in labor laws or enforcement, many venture-backed companies today don’t strictly monitor employee hours. As far as I know, there’s no obligation for firms to provide formal proof that staff stay within the 52-hour weekly cap.”
If an employee were to raise a complaint, the VC mentioned, “not having detailed time logs could lead to compliance concerns. Still, most R&D or deep tech companies employ highly self-driven professionals who manage their own time well, so such incidents are rare.”
The bigger challenge is likely in sectors that rely heavily on manual labor, like logistics, delivery, or manufacturing, where many workers earn close to the minimum wage. “In these industries, the 52-hour rule can substantially raise labor expenses due to required overtime and paid leave. This makes it harder for businesses with slim margins to maintain productivity and scale up,” the investor said.
Work practices in other countries
To see how South Korea’s 52-hour limit compares internationally—and why deep tech firms feel caught between competing demands—it’s helpful to look at how other leading tech nations regulate working hours.
In Germany, the UK, and France, standard workweeks usually fall between 33 and 48 hours. Australia and Canada have standard workweeks of 38 and 40 hours, respectively, with required overtime pay, striking a balance between worker rights and flexibility.
In the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets a 40-hour workweek. Non-exempt workers receive time-and-a-half for overtime, with no upper limit on total hours. (California only mandates double-time pay for certain overtime situations.)
In China, the typical workweek is also 40 hours, or 8 hours daily. Overtime is paid at higher rates: about 150% of normal pay on weekdays, 200% on weekends, and 300% on public holidays. In Japan, the standard is 40 hours per week, with overtime capped at 45 hours per month and 370 hours per year under normal conditions. Employers exceeding these limits may face fines and administrative sanctions, similar to other countries.
Singapore’s standard workweek is a bit longer at 44 hours, with a maximum of 72 overtime hours monthly. If distributed evenly, this amounts to roughly 62 hours per week. Overtime pay is comparable: 1.5 times for weekdays, double for rest days, and triple for public holidays.
South Korea’s 52-hour limit is in the middle of this range—stricter than the U.S. and Singapore, but more lenient than much of Europe. For deep tech founders competing globally, the real issue isn’t just the number, but whether strict weekly limits can accommodate the intense, fluctuating workloads typical of early-stage R&D.
