For generations, the 40-hour workweek has shaped American life. It determines when overtime begins, how businesses organize shifts, and how millions of families divide their time between earning a living and actually living.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has argued that this decades-old standard no longer reflects the modern economy. His Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act proposed lowering the federal standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 without allowing employers to reduce affected workers’ weekly pay or benefits. The legislation was introduced in March 2024 as S.3947.
The proposal would not automatically give every employee Friday off. It would instead change when overtime begins under the Fair Labor Standards Act, creating powerful financial incentives for employers to shorten schedules or pay workers more for longer weeks.
Overtime Would Gradually Begin After 32 Hours
Under current federal law, covered, nonexempt employees generally receive time-and-a-half pay only after working more than 40 hours during a workweek. The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would lower that threshold in stages rather than imposing the full change immediately.
During the first year, overtime would begin after 38 hours. The threshold would fall to 36 hours in the second year, 34 hours in the third, and finally 32 hours in the fourth year.
That gradual transition was designed to give employers time to adjust staffing, schedules and operating costs. A company could continue asking employees to work 40 hours, but once the proposal was fully implemented, the final eight hours would generally qualify for overtime pay.
The bill would also establish federal daily overtime protections. Eligible employees would receive time-and-a-half pay after working more than eight hours in one day and double pay after working more than 12 hours. Sanders’ fact sheet described these provisions as part of a broader effort to ensure workers benefit financially when employers require unusually long shifts.
Workers Would Keep Their Weekly Earnings
The most important part of the proposal was its protection against wage cuts. Employers could not reduce an affected employee’s total weekly compensation, hourly rate or benefits simply because the standard workweek had become shorter.
That distinction matters. A 32-hour week with reduced pay would simply turn full-time employees into workers earning four fewer hours of wages. Sanders’ bill instead envisioned 32 hours of work for the same weekly compensation previously earned over 40 hours.
The proposal would not necessarily create a universal four-day week. Employers could spread 32 hours across four eight-hour days, five shorter days or another schedule that complied with the law. The measure would regulate compensation and overtime rather than dictate which days businesses must open.
Existing overtime exemptions would also remain relevant. Certain executive, administrative and professional employees are exempt from federal overtime rules when they meet specific legal requirements. The bill focused primarily on workers who are already covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime protections.
Sanders Says Technology Should Give Workers More Time
Sanders has framed the legislation as a response to enormous increases in worker productivity. His office said American workers are now more than four times as productive as they were in the 1940s, when the 40-hour week became the federal standard.
Yet the standard workweek has remained largely unchanged for more than 80 years. Sanders argues that automation, robotics and artificial intelligence should improve workers’ lives instead of merely increasing profits for executives and shareholders.
“Moving to a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay is not a radical idea,” Sanders said when announcing the bill. He argued that technological gains should provide working people with more family time, less stress and a better quality of life.
Supporters have pointed to shorter-workweek experiments in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Sanders’ fact sheet cited a British trial involving roughly 3,000 employees at more than 60 companies, where workers reported less burnout and greater satisfaction with their time. Participating businesses also reported higher average revenue during the trial.
A separate trial involving 41 companies in the United States and Canada produced similarly positive employee responses. None of the participating businesses immediately wanted to return to a traditional five-day schedule, the fact sheet said.
Critics Warn Businesses Would Face Higher Costs
Opponents argue that the proposal’s promise of equal pay for fewer standard hours could create serious challenges for employers. Businesses requiring continuous staffing might need to pay more overtime, hire additional employees, reduce operating hours or pass higher costs to customers.
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy warned during a March 2024 Senate hearing that small businesses operating on narrow profit margins could struggle with the mandate. He argued that restaurants, hospitals and other workplaces facing labor shortages cannot always produce the same amount of work with fewer employee hours.
Critics have also questioned whether positive results from voluntary four-day-week experiments can be applied across the entire economy. Dr. Liberty Vittert, who testified before the Senate committee, argued that some studies involved self-selecting companies, limited sample sizes and short trial periods.
A flexible technology company may be able to eliminate meetings or automate routine tasks. A hospital, factory, restaurant or transportation system cannot always reduce staffing without affecting service. That difference sits at the heart of the political debate.
The Proposal Never Became Federal Law
The Senate bill received a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on March 14, 2024. Witnesses included United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain, researchers, business representatives, and workplace-policy advocates.
However, S.3947 remained at the “introduced” stage and did not pass before the 118th Congress ended. A future version would need to move through committees, win approval in both the House and Senate, and receive the president’s signature before becoming law.
The federal overtime threshold therefore remains 40 hours for covered, nonexempt employees. Federal law also does not generally require double pay or daily overtime, although some states provide stronger protections.
Sanders’ proposal may not have rewritten America’s work calendar, but it pushed an old question back into the national conversation. If technology allows workers to produce more in less time, should the reward be greater corporate profit, higher wages, or something Americans rarely receive from economic progress: more time?
