Fairer Part-Time Work Rules for Student Lives
Millions of students combine degrees with paid work, yet some universities treat part-time hours as a threat to academic standards rather than part of students’ financial reality. Student advocacy can change that starting point: policy must protect learning while recognising legitimate income needs, employment rights and the unequal pressures on working students.
At Dema Justicia, the Faculty of Law student council of Universitas Gadjah Mada, that task belongs within the university’s own democratic culture. Its organisational profile shows how a student-led council can connect research, discussion and collective action under Kabinet Cakrawala Perubahan.
The immediate debate concerns limits on how many hours students may work, particularly when rigid rules overlook course demands, commuting costs and family responsibilities. Credible reform would combine transparent criteria with real protections, rather than punish students for the circumstances that make paid employment necessary.
Why blanket work limits can fail
A blanket cap treats students with different circumstances as if they have identical capacity to work. A student supporting dependants, commuting across Yogyakarta or managing a demanding clinical placement faces different pressures from a student seeking a small income supplement. Counting hours alone cannot distinguish necessity from overload.
Reform should not mean unlimited working time either. Academic progression, rest and campus participation remain legitimate interests. The policy problem is to identify when a limit protects these interests and when it creates financial hardship, discourages lawful employment or shifts risk onto students who cannot decline a shift.
Turning student experience into evidence
Dema Justicia’s council leadership provides a route for law students to move between research and representation. A strong student advocacy position would collect working hours, earnings where students choose to share them, travel burdens, assessment conflicts and effects on wellbeing, while protecting personal data.
Consultation should involve more than a general survey. Small discussions with employed students, postgraduate researchers, students with disabilities and student workers can reveal where a rule fails. A policy submission can then connect those experiences to institutional responsibilities, compare options and identify what a review should measure.
Australian lessons for fairer rules
Australia offers a reference point, not a template. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, employees receive National Employment Standards, while modern awards set minimum wages and rules for rosters, overtime, leave and public holidays. The Fair Work (Schooling, New Education and Training) Award 2020 also limits hours for school students under 18; separately, international students on a Student visa generally face a 48-hour fortnight limit during study.
Local work makes the issue familiar. In Melbourne, evening hospitality shifts around the tram network can conflict with lectures and the last services home. In Brisbane, seasonal tourism and retail jobs may offer entry-level work but fluctuate with demand. In Sydney, high housing and commuting costs can consume the practical benefit of a modest hourly wage. In Perth, long travel distances can turn a casual roster into a major burden. In Adelaide, a smaller employment market can leave fewer roles close to campuses. Across these cities, roster changes exchanged through workplace apps are an ordinary part of casual employment.
These examples show why hours should be considered alongside scheduling, transport, financial need and course intensity. Some Australian courses offer assessed work-integrated learning separate from casual campus jobs. UGM can pursue a similarly clear distinction, while checking that classifications and legal protections do not disappear behind institutional labels.
A policy framework built around fairness
UGM should define what the limit covers: external employment, campus assistantships, internships, research assistance, family business duties or all of them. It should also identify who is affected by visa conditions, employment status, course load or accessibility needs. Those distinctions matter because one ceiling cannot responsibly govern every form of student work.
The core choices can be compared directly:
| Policy area | Rigid limit | Fairer approach |
|---|---|---|
| Hours | One maximum for all students | Safeguard with individual review for documented hardship |
| Work categories | Every paid activity counted equally | Separate campus jobs, external work and assessed placements |
| Academic support | Automatic penalty after a breach | Adjusted assessment arrangements without weaker standards |
| Student voice | Appeal decided without student participation | Panel including students, academics and support services |
| Transparency | General rule without explanations | Clear definitions, reasons, review dates and complaints routes |
A workable framework would give students notice before enforcement, publish reasons for exceptions and provide a review route. It should also pair any hours safeguard with counselling, financial assistance and reasonable adjustments. The aim is not to remove scrutiny of workload, but to make scrutiny proportionate to each student’s circumstances.
Skills, enterprise and visible advocacy
Advocacy becomes credible when it shows both the rule and the people affected by it. Dema Justicia can combine student research, consultations and position statements to present reform as an institutional responsibility. A careful evidence base can include anonymised cases, aggregate working-hour data and comparisons with other faculties, turning scattered grievances into a policy argument that university leaders can answer.
Campaigns also need practical tools. A guide to learning screen printing illustrates how pairing printmaking with dress-making can develop skills and modest income. The same connection between learning, production and enterprise can support student-made campaign materials, while ensuring that student advocacy does not depend on additional unpaid labour.
Safeguards against exploitation at work
No reform of university hours should weaken the minimum conditions owed to student workers. Whether a student is employed on campus, in a café or as an assistant at a legal clinic, the work should have clear terms, minimum legal pay, lawful breaks, occupational safety and protection from retaliation. Basic claims about classification or pay should not be left to individual students to resolve alone.
UGM can connect policy review with the support already valued across student life: financial guidance, mental-health services, transport assistance and learning support. Existing programmes such as scholarships, student fairs and orientation can carry clear information about working-hour rules and where help is available. Any scholarship or support scheme should remain voluntary and should not turn financial assistance into an obligation to work.
The principle worth keeping
Student advocacy is most effective when it turns daily experience into accountable institutional policy. For UGM, the standard is not fewer barriers to study, but rules that recognise financial reality while protecting academic quality, student health and employment rights.
The lasting principle is that working students should not have to choose between an income and a degree, or between academic progress and fair treatment at work. Reform succeeds when those aims reinforce one another.
