32-Hour Workweek Proposal: How Likely Is It For CA Employees?

CALIFORNIA — If artificial intelligence is coming for workers' jobs, they should at least share in the advantages of increased productivity, say the sponsors of legislation for 32-hour workweeks that could mean more overtime pay or shorter schedules for some workers in California.

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano reintroduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. Earlier versions did not advance in Congress, but employers' increasing use of artificial intelligence has renewed the debate.

Subscribe

Takano, who represents California's 39th Congressional District, first introduced the bill in 2021. He is the lead sponsor of the new House measure, while California Democratic Rep. Lou Correa of Orange County is among its original cosponsors, according to the official congressional record for H.R. 10323.

"A 32-hour workweek is not a radical idea," Sanders said in a statement announcing the legislation. "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," he continued. "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."

"The 40-hour workweek was established in law nearly 90 years ago," Takano said in a statement. "Since then, cell phones, the internet, and now AI have increased worker productivity, but the profits have been largely concentrated at the top by billionaires and corporations. Work has fundamentally changed. It's time that labor standards caught up."

The proposal is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Nurses United, Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, United Food and Commercial Workers, National Employment Law Project and WorkFour, a shorter-workweek advocacy organization.

What Would Change?

The bill would gradually lower the federal threshold for overtime pay from 40 hours a week to 38 in the first year, 36 in the second, 34 in the third and 32 after that, according to the text of H.R. 10323. Employers could still schedule 40-hour workweeks. Once the change was fully phased in, however, covered employees who worked 40 hours generally would receive time-and-a-half for the final eight hours.

The bill also would require time-and-a-half after eight hours in a day and double time after 12 hours. Employers could not reduce affected workers' total weekly compensation, regular pay rate or benefits because of the shorter standard workweek. Nonexempt employees are workers legally entitled to overtime pay. Most hourly workers qualify, but job duties and pay, not job title, determine eligibility.

For many California employees, however, the proposed daily overtime requirements would not represent a major change. California law already generally requires time-and-a-half for nonexempt employees working more than eight hours and up to 12 hours in a workday, as well as double time for work beyond 12 hours in a day. The state also generally requires overtime after 40 hours in a workweek, although exemptions and exceptions apply.

The more significant change for covered California employees would therefore be the weekly threshold, which would eventually trigger overtime after 32 hours rather than 40.

A Threat To Small Business?

In a 2024 hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued the 32-hour workweek bill would raise labor costs and consumer prices, push employers to replace full-time jobs with part-time roles and aggravate staffing shortages in health care and other labor-intensive fields.

"It would threaten millions of small businesses operating on a razor-thin margin because they're unable to find enough workers," Cassidy, then the committee's ranking Republican, said. "Now they've got the same workers, but only for three-quarters of the time. And they have to hire more."

The HR Policy Association, which represents corporate human resources officers, raised similar concerns at the hearing. The group said employers that require round-the-clock staffing or uninterrupted production could face substantial overtime or hiring costs. Retailers and hospitality businesses could instead shorten their operating hours, potentially alienating customers. California lawmakers have already wrestled with many of the same questions.

Assemblymembers Evan Low and Cristina Garcia introduced AB 2932 in 2022, a proposal that would have reduced the weekly overtime threshold from 40 to 32 hours for businesses with more than 500 employees while prohibiting employers from reducing workers' regular rate of pay because of the shorter workweek. The proposal failed to advance.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposed AB 2932, labeling it a "job killer" and arguing that requiring overtime after 32 hours would significantly increase labor costs. CalChamber's opposition was directed at the California proposal in 2022, not the federal legislation introduced by Takano and Sanders this month.

$2M Savings Touted

The clearest U.S. government test took place in San Juan County, Washington, where officials made the 32-hour workweek permanent after a two-year trial. County officials said the shorter workweek saved nearly $2 million in projected cost-of-living expenses associated with retaining a traditional 40-hour schedule. Job applications rose an average of 216 percent, positions were filled 27 percent faster, voluntary departures fell 28 percent and employees used 18 percent less sick time.

The county said the arrangement was initially adopted in 2023 as an alternative to requested cost-of-living increases and additional benefits during labor negotiations. After two years, officials decided to continue using the 32-hour schedule as the county's standard operating model. Other states have experimented with legislation of their own.

Maryland lawmakers proposed a five-year pilot in 2023 that would have given tax credits to qualifying employers that adopted a 32-hour, four-day week without cutting pay or benefits. The bills were withdrawn over concerns about the program's estimated $1 million annual cost and making 32 hours the standard workweek. The pilot never began.

Pennsylvania lawmakers floated two proposals in 2023. One would have offered tax credits to employers voluntarily joining a four-day-week pilot. House Bill 1065 was referred to the state House Labor and Industry Committee but did not advance. Another proposal from state Rep. G. Roni Green would have required companies with more than 500 employees to cut the workweek from 40 to 32 hours without reducing pay. Green announced the proposal in August 2023, but it also failed to gain traction.

Trials in the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal and South Africa generally found that shorter workweeks reduced burnout and improved workers' well-being without major losses in revenue or staff retention, Newsweek reported. Most participating employers continued with reduced hours in some form. The trials also exposed problems with staffing, customer coverage and squeezing workloads into fewer hours, particularly when companies had little time to prepare or applied the change unevenly.

The latest federal proposal is only at the beginning of the legislative process. H.R. 10323 was introduced Sept. 8 and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Previous versions of Takano's proposal have not cleared Congress.