Working time and rest time in the era of digitalization: opposition or comparison?

<p>Based on the content analysis method, the demand for the categories “working time” and “rest time” in legal science is characterized. It is noted that the architectonics of codified labor legislation and legal definitions lead to the opposition of relevant concepts, giving rise to cognitive dissonance. The comparison method is more logical given the existence of a period of temporary incapacity for work, which cannot be attributed to either working time or rest time. It is emphasized that student leave, maternity leave, and child care leave do not correspond to the definition of rest time, since positive law provides for the use of the appropriate time for certain socially significant purposes, and not at the employee's own discretion. The norms of International Law (ILO conventions) and constitutional norms are logically based on the principle of comparing working time and rest time. The task of legal science and education is to formulate a lawyer's understanding of an employee's time as a complex structural phenomenon containing components that do not fit into the dichotomous (polarized) division resulting from the architectonics and definitions of codified labor law.</p>