Bill would move U.S. toward a 32‑hour workweek, protect workers’ pay

The Thirty‑Two Hour Workweek Act, reintroduced Sept. 8, 2026, would phase the overtime threshold to 32 hours and bars employers from cutting weekly pay.

A bill reintroduced in Congress this week would gradually move the federal overtime threshold from 40 hours to 32 hours per week and prohibits employers from reducing workers’ total weekly compensation as a result, its sponsors say.

The Thirty‑Two Hour Workweek Act, filed Sept. 8, 2026, by Rep. Mark Takano (D‑Calif.) in the House and reintroduced in the Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.), would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to change when overtime pay is owed for many non‑exempt employees. The bill text lays out a phased schedule that would make the 32‑hour threshold effective after three years, stepping first to 38 hours in year one, 36 hours in year two and 34 hours in year three.

Why it matters: supporters say the proposal would redistribute gains from technology and higher productivity to workers through more time off or higher pay for hours worked beyond the new standard. Senate and House press statements accompanying the reintroduction cite rising productivity, changing work patterns and the growth of automation and artificial intelligence as part of the rationale for updating federal overtime rules.

Key provisions in the bill include a requirement that overtime beyond the new weekly threshold be paid at least one and one‑half times an employee’s regular rate, with higher premium rates for longer single workdays, and an explicit clause that “the employer of such employee may not reduce the total workweek compensation rate, including the regular rate … or any other employee benefit” because the employee is newly covered by the amended overtime rules. That language appears in the bill text itself.

The reintroduction was accompanied by a list of labor and advocacy endorsements, according to sponsors’ statements, including national unions and worker advocacy groups. Takano’s and Sanders’s offices framed the measure as a way to ensure workers share in productivity gains, while noting the legislation would be phased in rather than immediate.

Legislative status and context: the House filing lists the bill as H.R. 10323 and shows it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill summary and full text are available on the official government publishing site. Sponsors note this is not the first time similar legislation has been proposed; versions have been introduced in earlier Congresses.

Reactions so far are divided. Supporters argue a shorter standard workweek would improve health, increase leisure time, and better distribute economic gains. Critics — including some business groups and commentators — have questioned the practical effects on scheduling, small employers and industries that rely on long shifts, though formal opposition filings or agency positions have not been attached to the bill at the time it was filed. The text itself does not change tax or benefit law beyond the overtime and pay protections it specifies; any broader economic impact would depend on future rulemaking, enforcement and congressional action.

What’s next: as filed, the bill must move out of committee and survive other procedural steps before any floor votes. Sponsors have released summaries and the full draft; the bill is publicly posted by the Government Publishing Office and on the sponsors’ websites for review.

Sources

Featured image credit: source image.