US could move to 32-hour workweek under new bill: What changes

The bill would not require employers to move workers to a four-day workweek. Instead, it would change federal overtime rules so that employers would generally have to pay a premium when covered employees work beyond the new weekly threshold.

Sanders said the change is particularly important as artificial intelligence and automation reshape the workplace. “At a time when artificial intelligence and robotics will radically transform our economy, it is imperative that the financial gains from this new technology benefit working families, not just a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs. One important way to do that is through a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay or benefits,” Sanders said in a Sept. 8 news release.

How the overtime threshold would change

Under current federal law, most workers covered by overtime protections must receive at least one-and-a-half times their regular pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a week, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

The proposed law would reduce that threshold gradually. It would fall from 40 hours to 38 hours in the first year after the law takes effect, then to 36 hours in the second year and 34 hours in the third year. It would eventually reach 32 hours.

This means the bill would not prevent an employer from asking an employee to work more than 32 hours. Instead, those additional hours would generally become eligible for overtime pay once the new threshold is fully implemented.

For example, an eligible employee working 40 hours a week under the proposed 32-hour standard would generally receive regular pay for 32 hours and overtime pay for the remaining eight hours.

The bill would also address daily overtime

The proposal would introduce overtime requirements based not only on the length of the workweek but also on the length of the working day. Covered employees would generally receive time-and-a-half pay for hours worked beyond eight hours in a day. Hours worked beyond 12 hours would generally qualify for double pay.

The legislation would also seek to prevent employers from responding to the shorter standard workweek by reducing workers’ weekly compensation or benefits.

It would not guarantee a four-day workweek

Despite being described as a 32-hour workweek proposal, the bill would not automatically give every worker three days off each week. An employer could choose to schedule 32 hours over four days, but the legislation would not require a particular schedule. A business could organise those hours differently depending on its operations.

The proposal also would not cover every worker in the United States. It would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which already exempts certain categories of employees from federal overtime requirements, including some executive, administrative and professional employees.

The idea has been proposed before

The latest bill is not the first congressional attempt to establish a shorter workweek. Takano introduced similar legislation in 2021 and 2023, while Sanders introduced a Senate bill in 2024 that sought to reduce the standard workweek.

The idea has a longer history in U.S. labor law. When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, the overtime threshold was initially set at 44 hours a week. It was later reduced to 42 hours before reaching the 40-hour standard that is common today. The law did not prevent employees from working longer hours. Instead, it required employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond the threshold.

Shorter workweeks have been tested elsewhere

Shorter working weeks have also been tested by governments and employers in smaller-scale experiments. In Washington state, San Juan County moved much of its workforce to a 32-hour week in 2023. After operating the arrangement as a pilot, the county said in late 2025 that it would make the model permanent. Officials reported lower sick-leave use, more job applications and estimated cost savings, while also pointing to challenges involving scheduling, public-facing services and staffing coverage.

A major four-day-workweek experiment in the United Kingdom in 2022 involved 61 organizations and about 2,900 workers. Participants reduced working time by 20% without reducing salaries. Researchers at the University of Cambridge reported that sick days fell by 65% and staff departures declined by 57% compared with the same period a year earlier. Most participating employers said they planned to continue with reduced working hours. The experiment was voluntary, however, and did not create a nationwide legal requirement for a shorter workweek.

Why supporters want a shorter workweek

Supporters of the bill argue that improvements in technology and productivity should translate into more free time for workers rather than simply higher corporate profits. Sanders has particularly linked the proposal to the growth of artificial intelligence and automation. He argues that workers should benefit from the productivity gains generated by these technologies.

“A 32-hour workweek is not a radical idea,” he said in a press release announcing the bill. “What’s radical is that, despite an explosion in technology and productivity over the last fifty years, millions of workers are working longer hours for lower wages while nearly $80 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent. That has got to change. It’s time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow workers and their families to enjoy a better quality of life. It’s time to pass this bill.”

Takano similarly argued that labor rules need to reflect changes in the modern workplace. “Work has fundamentally changed. It’s time that labor standards caught up,” Takano said.

Why the bill faces opposition

Critics of a shorter standard workweek have argued that requiring employers to pay overtime after 32 hours could significantly increase labor costs. During a 2024 Senate hearing, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that employers could respond to higher labor costs by increasing prices, hiring fewer workers or moving jobs elsewhere.

The bill’s political prospects are also uncertain. Sanders is an independent senator who caucuses with Democrats, while Takano is a Democrat. Republicans currently control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making passage of the Democrat-led proposal difficult.