A significant legislative proposal is making its way through the US Congress, aiming to fundamentally alter the traditional 40-hour workweek. The "Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act," championed by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Representative Mark Takano of California, proposes a phased reduction of the standard workweek, after which employees would be eligible for overtime pay.
Gradual Reduction of the Workweek Threshold
Under current federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates overtime pay—one-and-a-half times the regular rate—for most covered employees working beyond 40 hours in a week. The new bill seeks to incrementally lower this threshold:
- In the first year after enactment, the overtime threshold would drop to 38 hours.
- The second year would see it reduce further to 36 hours.
- By the third year, the threshold would be 34 hours.
- Once fully phased in, the standard workweek for overtime eligibility would be 32 hours.
This means that an eligible employee working 40 hours per week would, upon full implementation, receive eight hours of overtime pay.
New Daily Overtime Provisions and Employee Protections
Beyond weekly changes, the proposed legislation also introduces new daily overtime rules. Covered employees would generally be entitled to time-and-a-half pay after eight hours of work in a single day, and double their normal rate after 12 hours. While employers would still have the flexibility to ask workers to put in longer hours, doing so would become significantly more expensive.
Crucially, the bill includes provisions to safeguard workers' financial stability. It explicitly prohibits employers from reducing an affected worker's weekly compensation or benefits solely because the standard workweek has been shortened.
Not a Mandated Four-Day Week for All
It is important to note that the "Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act" would not automatically translate into a four-day work schedule for every American worker. The bill does not prescribe specific working days, allowing businesses the flexibility to arrange 32 hours across various schedules. Furthermore, the legislation would amend the existing FLSA, meaning that certain categories of employees—such as some executive, administrative, and professional workers—who are already exempt from federal overtime protections would likely remain so.
Arguments For and Against the Proposal
Supporters of the bill argue that advancements in technology, particularly artificial intelligence and automation, have dramatically increased productivity. They contend that workers should share in these gains through reduced working hours, leading to improved work-life balance and overall well-being. Experiments in other countries, such as a 2022 UK trial involving 61 organizations, reported positive outcomes like a 65 percent reduction in sick days and a 57 percent drop in staff departures.
However, opponents raise concerns about the potential economic impact. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, during a 2024 Senate hearing, warned that maintaining pay while reducing hours could significantly increase costs for businesses. This, he suggested, might lead employers to respond by raising prices, reducing hiring, or even relocating jobs to other regions or countries.
The concept of a shorter workweek has been a topic of discussion in Congress for several years, with Representative Takano introducing similar legislation in 2021 and 2023, and Senator Sanders presenting a Senate version in 2024. This latest push represents a continued effort to adapt labor laws to the evolving economic and technological landscape.