Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Mark Takano support reintroducing the 32-Hour Workweek Act into Congress. Takano introduced the House version, HR 10323, on September 8, 2026.
The proposal would gradually lower the federal overtime threshold from 40 hours to 32 hours for covered and non-exempt workers.
What will the 32-hour workweek bill change?
H.R. 10323 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Following its passage, it was referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee. Congressional records list Takano as the bill’s sponsor.
This proposal would not immediately lower the overtime threshold to 32 hours. Instead, the change will begin no earlier than 180 days after it takes effect.
During the first year, overtime will apply after 38 hours per workweek. The threshold will drop to 36 hours in the second year and 34 hours in the third year. After this stage, covered employees will generally be eligible for overtime after 32 hours.
The bill also proposes rules for daily overtime. Covered workers will receive at least one and a half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of eight per day, up to 12 hours. Under the proposed legislation, hours worked in excess of 12 in a day would require at least double the regular rate.
This would be a new requirement in the bill and not a description of existing federal law.
The phrase “32-hour work week” may sound like a guaranteed four-day schedule. HR 10323 does not require employers to stop hiring covered employees after 32 hours. Instead, hours exceeding the applicable weekly threshold generally trigger overtime pay, and hours exceeding eight per workday may also trigger proposed daily overtime requirements.
Under current federal regulations, covered non-exempt employees generally must receive overtime pay of at least one and a half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
This requirement comes from the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Department defines a workweek as a fixed period of 168 hours or seven consecutive 24-hour periods.
Once fully implemented, a covered, non-exempt employee who works 40 hours in a workweek will generally be entitled to overtime pay for eight of those hours.
For context, this isn’t Sanders’ first attempt to shorten the workweek. Takano first introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Law in 2021. A subsequent version, H.R. 1332, was introduced in 2023, before the current bill was filed in the House.
Why Sanders and Takano support this
Sanders and Takano presented the proposal as a response to rising productivity, changing technology and concerns about how workers would benefit from artificial intelligence and robotics.
Takano’s September statement said labor laws should reflect the modern nature of work. The statement also argues that productivity growth should lead to greater benefits for working families, rather than a concentration among corporate executives and wealthy investors.
The 2026 announcement did not set the 93.2% productivity and 33.7% wage targets mentioned in some earlier descriptions of the proposal. These figures should not be taken as part of Takano’s latest official statement without citing the main source.
Sanders made the technology argument directly.
“At a time when artificial intelligence and robotics will radically transform our economy, it is critical that the financial benefits of this new technology benefit working families, not just a handful of billionaires and CEOs,” Sanders said. “One important way to achieve this is to implement a 32-hour work week without loss of wages or benefits.”
This wording reflects the policy rationale for the measure. This should not be taken as a guarantee that every employee will receive the same weekly salary after switching to a 32-hour workday.
The statutory wording is narrower. It would prohibit an employer from reducing the employee’s total rate of compensation for the workweek, the regular rate, or other employee benefits because the employee is subject to the modified overtime rules.
According to Takano’s office, the legislation was endorsed by labor organizations including the AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, National Nurses United and Service Employees International Union. Other supporters listed include the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, the National Employment Law Project and the United Food and Commercial Workers.
H.R. 10323 remains as introduced legislation. It was referred to committee but did not become law. Its prospects cannot be determined solely on the basis of documents.
If passed, the proposal would be a significant change without automatically eliminating the five-day work week. Employers may continue to schedule longer hours to comply with the bill’s weekly and daily overtime requirements.
Whether businesses absorb the additional labor costs, hire more staff or reduce scheduled hours will depend on how employers respond if Congress approves the measure.