By 
The 468 policy represents Hong Kong’s most significant revision to employment law in decades, a regulatory shift that will fundamentally alter the relationship between workers and employers across the territory. At first glance, the numbers seem unremarkable: a reduction from 18 to 17 hours, a new calculation spanning 68 hours over four weeks. Yet these modest adjustments contain a recognition that the nature of work itself has transformed beyond the capacity of old rules to contain it. For tens of thousands of employees who have existed in regulatory twilight, the 468 policy offers something increasingly rare in modern labour markets: clarity.
The Architecture of Change
To understand the 468 policy, one must first grasp what came before. Hong Kong’s Employment Ordinance has long relied on continuous contracts to determine which workers qualify for statutory benefits. Under the previous 418 rule, employees needed to work at least 18 hours weekly for four consecutive weeks to cross this threshold. Employers discovered that by scheduling workers for slightly fewer hours in strategic weeks, they could maintain a flexible workforce whilst avoiding the obligations that accompany continuous employment status.
Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2025 on 18 June 2025, formally introducing the 468 policy framework. The revised requirements will take effect from 18 January 2026, following an official gazetting period that concluded in late June.
Dual Pathways to Protection
The 468 policy establishes two distinct methods through which employees can qualify for continuous contract status:
Modified weekly calculation
Workers who complete 17 or more hours of work per week for four consecutive weeks now meet the continuous contract threshold. This represents a lowering of the previous 18-hour requirement, signalling regulatory intent to broaden coverage.
Aggregate hour calculation
Employees who work a total of 68 hours across any four-week period qualify for statutory benefits, regardless of weekly distribution. This rolling calculation captures workers whose schedules fluctuate from week to week but who nonetheless maintain substantial employment relationships.
The innovation lies in their coexistence. By offering parallel routes to qualification, the 468 policy acknowledges that modern employment patterns resist simple categorisation. A tutor might work 25 hours one week, 12 the next, 18 the following, and 15 in the fourth. Under the old system, such a worker would fail to qualify despite averaging more than 17 hours weekly. The 468 policy corrects this oversight.
What Protection Means
The stakes of qualifying under the 468 policy extend beyond abstract legal status. Continuous contract employees gain access to statutory benefits including paid statutory holidays, annual leave entitlements, sickness allowance, maternity and paternity leave provisions, severance payments, and long service payments. For workers in precarious positions, particularly those in retail, catering, and service industries where irregular scheduling is common, these protections represent the difference between employment that offers security and work that merely provides income.
The government estimates that 11,000 additional workers will now qualify for benefits under the revised rule. This figure captures individuals who have long operated in regulatory limbo: event staff who work intensively during peak seasons, delivery personnel whose hours surge with demand, shop assistants whose schedules bend to accommodate business fluctuations.
Implementation Requirements
The 468 policy imposes specific obligations on employers:
Comprehensive hour tracking
Organisations must implement systems capable of calculating aggregate hours across rolling four-week periods. Manual timekeeping methods will prove insufficient for demonstrating compliance.
Contract documentation
Employment agreements must clearly reflect the revised continuous contract definitions. Ambiguous language that fails to address the 468 policy framework exposes employers to potential disputes.
Benefit administration
Human resources departments must identify newly eligible employees and ensure timely provision of statutory entitlements.
Record retention
Maintaining detailed records of working hours becomes essential for demonstrating compliance during labour department inspections or employee disputes.
The Broader Pattern
Hong Kong’s adoption of the 468 policy follows a trajectory visible across multiple jurisdictions. The United Kingdom, Australia, and numerous European nations have progressively expanded protections for non-standard workers, recognising that traditional full-time employment no longer describes contemporary labour markets. The rise of the gig economy, flexible working arrangements, and multiple job holding have all contributed to a regulatory environment where old definitions fit poorly.
Yet the 468 policy also reflects tensions specific to Hong Kong’s economic structure. The territory’s service-dominated economy relies heavily on part-time and casual labour. Retail, hospitality, and food service sectors have built business models around workforce flexibility. The 468 policy does not prohibit such arrangements but insists they come with corresponding responsibilities.
Preparing for January 2026
The months between now and the 468 policy implementation date represent a critical window. Employers must audit their workforce composition, identifying which employees will newly qualify under the revised thresholds. This requires examining historical working patterns, not merely current schedules. Organisations that delay this analysis will find themselves scrambling to achieve compliance whilst simultaneously managing increased benefit costs.
For workers, the 468 policy offers an opportunity to verify their own eligibility. Those who have consistently worked close to but below the old 18-hour weekly threshold should examine whether their aggregate hours over four-week periods meet the 68-hour standard.
The transformation encoded in the 468 policy is both technical and profound. At the level of administrative detail, it involves new calculations, revised contracts, and enhanced record keeping. At a deeper level, it represents a recalibration of how Hong Kong values workers who have long existed at the margins of legal protection. Whether the 468 policy achieves its stated goals will depend on the commitment with which it is enforced and the good faith with which employers embrace its spirit. That outcome remains to be written, but the framework itself stands as a concrete commitment to adapting employment law to modern work realities, a recognition that the 468 policy must serve the labour market as it exists, not as it once was.
Comments