On September 8, 2026, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Mark Takano reintroduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, a bill that would phase out the 40-hour workweek most employers have run on since 1940. It is not the first time this bill has been introduced. This version ties the idea directly to the debate over AI and automation, which is worth understanding even if you never need to act on it.
This is a proposal, not current law. Nothing about your overtime obligations has changed. Here is what the bill would do, why it is back now, and what it would mean for payroll if it ever passed.
What the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act Would Actually Do
The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to lower the overtime threshold for non-exempt employees over a four-year phase-in: 38 hours in year one (starting at least 180 days after the bill becomes law), then 36, then 34, and finally 32 hours in year four. Once an employee crosses that year’s threshold, the employer owes overtime, using the same structure as today’s 40-hour rule, just at a lower number.
Two other provisions matter for payroll specifically. Workdays longer than 8 hours would require time-and-a-half, and workdays longer than 12 hours would require double pay. The bill also requires that pay and benefits stay the same as hours drop, so it is written as a reduction in hours at the same cost to the worker, not a pay cut.
The bill only applies to non-exempt employees, the same group covered by overtime rules today. Salaried, exempt employees fall under a separate salary threshold and would not be affected by this bill. (If you are trying to sort out that separate exemption question, we cover where that federal salary threshold actually stands in a different post.)
Why This Is Coming Up Again Now
Sanders and Takano have introduced versions of this bill before, going back to at least 2021. What’s different this time is the framing. The sponsors are tying it explicitly to AI and automation, arguing that productivity gains from new technology need to reach workers, not just shareholders.
American workers are more than 400 percent more productive than they were in the 1940s. The average full-time worker still worked almost 43 hours a week in 2024, and wages have not kept pace with those productivity gains. Sanders’ office also points to a UK pilot program that ran from June to December 2022, where about 3,000 workers across 60 companies moved to a four-day week. Seventy-one percent of participating employees reported lower burnout, and most of the companies involved chose to continue the shorter week after the pilot ended.
There is some precedent for a phased-in reduction. The 40-hour week was not always the standard: the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act originally set the maximum at 44 hours, then phased it down to 40 by 1940. This bill borrows that same phase-in structure, just starting from 40 instead of 44.
Where the Bill Actually Stands
Realistically, this bill is not close to becoming law. Earlier versions died in committee without a vote. Business groups have consistently opposed the concept, too. The Society for Human Resource Management has called a similar state-level proposal a “one-size-fits-all” approach that would create a logistical burden for multi-state employers. Other critics argue a mandatory reduction in hours could push some employers toward layoffs or price increases to absorb the added labor cost, particularly in industries that already run on thin margins.
The Senate committee that would need to advance this bill is chaired by a senator who has previously raised those same cost concerns. That makes near-term passage unlikely. Still, four-day and reduced-hour proposals have come up in Congress multiple times over the past several years, and interest does not appear to be fading.
What It Would Mean for Employers If It Passes
If something like this bill were ever enacted, the mechanics would look familiar to anyone who runs payroll today, just with a lower number to track against. Each year of the phase-in would mean:
- Updating your standard overtime threshold in whatever system calculates hours and pay
- Re-checking scheduling patterns that assume a 40-hour week, since a shift structure built around 40 hours would trigger overtime sooner
- Reviewing pay rates for non-exempt staff to confirm total weekly pay stays level as the hour threshold drops, since the bill requires no loss in pay
- Watching for the new 8-hour and 12-hour daily overtime triggers, since federal law today calculates overtime on a weekly total only
That last point is worth sitting with. Most employers only think about overtime in terms of the 40-hour weekly total. A bill with daily overtime triggers at 8 and 12 hours is a meaningfully different calculation, closer to how a handful of states like California already handle it. If this bill or something like it advances, daily overtime tracking would stop being a state-specific edge case and become a federal requirement.
Why Overtime Tracking Matters Either Way
Getting overtime math right is already one of the more common sources of payroll errors, and it gets harder every time a threshold or rule changes. A lower threshold, plus new daily triggers, would raise the stakes on mistakes that already happen under today’s rules.
This is why configurable overtime tracking matters more than most businesses realize until a rule actually changes. TimeTrakGO lets you set your overtime rules at the account level, so if a state or federal rule shifts the threshold, you adjust a setting rather than rebuild your payroll process from scratch.
This isn’t legal advice. If you have specific questions about how a proposed law like this would affect your business, that’s a conversation worth having with an employment attorney. But if tracking hours accurately against whatever threshold applies to you sounds like something you’d rather not manage in a spreadsheet, try TimeTrakGO free for 14 days and see how it handles overtime calculations today.
About the Author: Brian Zurawski
