The head of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), Yasmin Fahimi, is calling for heat loss benefits in Germany. “In extreme cases, there will be a loss of work due to weather in the future,” Fahimi told the German Press Agency. “Therefore, the legislature is called upon to find regulations that ensure solidarity for future loss benefits for employees and employers.”
Fahimi’s demand is not without reason: a hot day costs the German economy 431 million euros. This emerges from an analysis by the research and consulting company Prognos on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) from February 2026. 97 percent of these costs arise from declining employee productivity. “We can no longer afford to be idle,” emphasized Fahimi in this context.
A third of employees suffer from heat stress
A current DGB survey of 4,000 employees, which was carried out between January and April 2026, shows how much heat is already affecting everyday working life. The result: One in three employees already feels strongly or somewhat stressed by high temperatures at work. This is especially true for activities that take place outdoors. According to the survey, the furnishings are very important indoors. In indoor spaces without air conditioning or sun protection, every second employee complains of noticeable heat impairment.
Work stress also seems to play a crucial role. At 48 percent, employees who often work under time pressure are more than twice as likely to suffer from heat stress as employees without time pressure. 23 percent are affected here.
So far, only occupational safety and health benefits apply, but no heat benefit
For most employees in Germany, so far only protective measures apply in extreme heat, but no heat benefit. In concrete terms, this means that the employer is obliged to protect employees from health risks and to take appropriate measures. These include adjusting working hours, having enough drinks or ventilation in the morning hours. In addition, employers are subject to obligations set out in the Technical Rules for Workplaces (ARS) and drawn up by the Committee for Workplaces (ASTA). They are intended to ensure minimum standards for the safety and health protection of employees. There are therefore certain room temperatures for indoor spaces, above which employers must take measures.
For outdoor workers, the people who are most affected by heat according to the DGB survey, there are currently no comparable rules in addition to general regulations such as sun protection and shading options, especially in the event of possible absences due to unreasonable heat.
“No work, no wages” – No general entitlement to wages in the event of heat losses
Those who cannot work in extreme heat may have to expect a loss of wages. Dr. Anton Barrein, labor law attorney at the Hanover law firm Activelaw, makes it clear: There is no general right to continued payment of remuneration. “The principle is: No work, no pay.”
The situation is different if the employer does not fulfill its protective obligations. In this case, employees have a so-called right to refuse performance and they retain their right to remuneration. “If there is an immediate, significant danger due to heat, you may be entitled to continued payment of wages,” adds Barrein. A heat-related inability to work, which is particularly the case for vulnerable groups of people, can also trigger a claim for continued payment of wages. DGB boss Fahimi wants to close the financial gap caused by heat losses for some employees with her push for a legal solution.
How heat loss benefits already work for roofers today
One industry is already showing how such heat loss benefit can work: the roofing world. A comparable regulation for default payments has been in place there since June 2020. If roofers cannot work between April and November due to compelling weather conditions, the collective agreement to secure employment (TV Besch) applies. According to Section 101 of the Third Social Code (SGB), compelling weather conditions exist if, for example, rain, snow, frost or heat “make it unreasonable for the employees to continue the work.”
If work is lost for at least one hour on a day due to extreme weather conditions, the employee will receive compensation for each hour lost. This is paid out for a maximum of 53 hours per calendar year and employee. Neither hours from the working time account nor vacation days need to be used for this.
The amount of the loss allowance is 75 percent of the individual hourly wage; for piecework workers, whose wages are based on actual work performed instead of working hours, it is 100 percent. The payment is made over the regular monthly salary, but must be listed separately in the payslip.
But the employer is not left with the costs. The roofing trade’s social fund, Soka-Dach, reimburses the employer for the loss allowance paid out plus a flat-rate levy of currently 23 percent for any social benefits incurred. The application is made by the employer via the gross payroll report for the respective month with lost hours.
The entitlement to a heat compensation payment expires if it is not claimed within six months of the end of the year in which it arose. The deadline is therefore June 30th of the following year.
More bureaucracy instead of protection? Legal expert assesses the initiative critically
Does it make sense to introduce this roofing industry model to other industries? Barein is critical of the idea of extending a generally binding collective agreement modeled on the roofing trade to other industries. On the one hand, this applies with regard to the negative freedom of association of the collective bargaining parties, which enables employees to stay away from or leave unions or employers’ associations. On the other hand, it is worrying given the additional cost burden for employers. The basic requirement would be that the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) has a corresponding collective agreement, which could then be declared generally binding (Section 5 of the Collective Bargaining Act (TVG)). “However, such collective agreements hardly or not at all exist,” says Barrein.
He advocates relying on employers’ personal responsibility: Lawmakers should assume that companies correctly implement existing occupational safety regulations instead of creating more bureaucracy and administrative costs, says Barrein.
Is there a solution for cross-industry heat loss benefit?
The labor lawyer could, however, imagine a different model: a pay-as-you-go loss allowance that allows certain professional groups to have a paid loss of work from defined temperatures and is reimbursed accordingly.
But here questions arise for Barrein. “It is unclear what the relationship should be with the technical and organizational measures of occupational safety law,” he says. These measures should take priority before there are blanket exemptions above certain temperature limits. Otherwise, according to him, there is not only a risk of significant economic damage to individual companies, but entire sectors of the economy in certain regions could be paralyzed.
In addition, there are practical demarcation problems that Barrein considers to be almost impossible to solve. “Where is the relevant temperature measured, at what time and with which device? All of this seems to lead to arbitrary results.”
The question of financing is also unclear. Barrein is most likely to adopt a pay-as-you-go model to spread the cost burden. However, this would involve considerable administrative costs, such as those known from the social security system in the construction industry. Another option would be to directly oblige employers to provide paid time off at certain temperatures. “Then it hits the employer,” says Barrein. Such a solution would distribute the financial burden, but increase the burden on companies.
Mara Marx is a volunteer at Human Resources.
