A group of lawmakers is pushing the Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to redefine the standard full-time workweek from 40 to 32 hours, triggering overtime after 32 hours and after eight hours in a day, while aiming to protect workers’ current pay and benefits during a multi-year phase-in.

In the past, the bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Mark Takano and in the Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders. It changes the legal threshold at which overtime must be paid for non-exempt workers from 40 to 32 hours per week and sets eight hours as a standard workday. Employers would owe time-and-a-half for hours beyond eight in a day and beyond 32 in a week, and double-time for workdays exceeding 12 hours. Sponsors emphasize that employers may not reduce “total workweek compensation” (pay and benefits) as hours fall, so the hourly rate rises even if weekly pay stays flat.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Members of Congress explicitly call for establishing a 32-hour workweek for full-time employees without any reduction in total pay or benefits.

The transition to 32 hours is phased in over several years (three or four years in different descriptions), and the bill does not cap the total hours an employee may work; rather, it increases the share of those hours that must be compensated at overtime rates. Supporters frame the Act as a way for workers to share productivity gains from technology, expand work-sharing opportunities, and improve work-life balance, while critics warn that it effectively raises labor costs by roughly 25 percent, potentially forcing some employers to reduce hours, raise prices, or move production offshore.

Supporters argue that productivity has risen sharply over decades while median wages have stagnated, so a shorter paid workweek lets workers benefit from technological efficiency rather than working ever-longer hours. They point to pilot programs (such as the UK four-day-week trials) where a 32-hour week produced lower burnout, higher job satisfaction, and stable or higher revenues, suggesting that better-rested workers can maintain or even increase output in fewer hours. By requiring overtime above 32 hours and barring cuts to total compensation, proponents say the bill could raise effective hourly pay, enhance bargaining power, and push employers to hire additional staff, promoting work-sharing and broader labor-market participation. Unions and worker-advocacy groups endorse the proposal, highlighting potential gains in health, family time, and overall quality of life.

Opponents contend that mandating a 32-hour standard with no loss of pay imposes a one-size-fits-all 25 percent increase in the cost of full-time labor, which many small and mid-size employers cannot absorb without raising prices, cutting jobs, or reducing investment. They argue the model may work in office and knowledge-work settings but is far less viable for sectors that rely on continuous, hands-on production—such as manufacturing, logistics, and some service industries—where output is tightly linked to hours on the job. Critics also warn that some workers could see their hours cut below full-time thresholds or face reduced flexibility if employers restructure schedules to avoid daily overtime triggers, meaning the policy might benefit a subset of better-paid workers more than lower-income employees it aims to help.

Do you think Congress should pass the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act?