32-hour workweek

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act to the US Senate. If passed, the bill would formally reduce the workweek in the US from 40 hours to 32 hours without a reduction in pay. It has not been put forward to a vote and has no clear timeline for advancement.

Specifics: The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was originally passed in 1938 and amended in 1940 to establish the 40-hour workweek. It would:

• Apply primarily to hourly workers; existing exempt jobs under the Fair Labor Standards Act would be exempt from the new rules.
• Reduce the threshold for overtime pay from 40 hours to 32 hours gradually over a 4-year period.
• Require overtime pay of 1.5x for any hours worked above 32 hours in a week or above 8 hours in a day.
• Prohibit employers from reducing total workweek compensation with the hours reduction.

The bill is a companion bill to similar legislation Rep. Mark Takano (D-California) introduced in 2021 to the House of Representatives, which has not been put forward for a vote.

Sanders, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, promoted his bill during a committee hearing, saying, “The question that we are asking today is a pretty simple question, do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top? Or do we demand that these transformational changes benefit working people?”

Ranking Member of the committee Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) opposed the bill, saying, “If this policy is implemented, it would threaten the millions of small businesses already operating on razor-thin margins, in part because they are unable to find enough workers…Now they’ve got the same workers, but only for three-quarters of the time, and they have to hire more.”

Observers emphasize the bill is unlikely to pass a vote in either chamber in the near future. Nonetheless, its introduction has reignited debate over the merits of a shortened workweek in the US.

Framing the debate: There are two types of shortened workweeks frequently discussed: 1) workweeks with fewer total hours (e.g., 32 hours instead of 40) and 2) workweeks that condense the same total hours into fewer days (e.g., 40 hours into 4 days instead of 5).

The viewpoints below reference either type of shortened workweek but, for simplicity, are categorized under whether they would generally support or oppose a 32-hour workweek. As always, let us know what you think.

Notable viewpoints

MORE SUPPORTIVE OF A 32-HOUR WORKWEEK

Technology-driven productivity gains should enable fewer working hours for workers.

• American workers have not benefited from their increased productivity; workers are 400% more productive today than they were in the 1940s when measured by labor output per hour yet have seen a widening gap between productivity and compensation.
• The benefits of increased productivity are unfairly distributed; weekly wages for workers are lower than they were in 1974 after adjusting for inflation while average CEO pay is 399x that of a typical worker.
• Profits from efficiency gains driven by technologies like artificial intelligence should be distributed to workers in the form of reduced working hours rather than the “billionaire class” keeping profits for themselves.
• An Autonomy research report found that AI could enable 28% of the American workforce to achieve a 4-day workweek within 10 years.

Shortened workweek pilots have shown a positive impact on worker well-being and productivity.

• 61 companies in the UK participated in a 4-day workweek pilot in 2023 and saw a 35% average increase in revenue (compared to similar periods in previous years), with 71% of employees reporting reduced levels of burnout and 92% of the companies opting to continue the policy.
• Microsoft’s 2019 4-day workweek trial in Japan reported a 40% increase in productivity while Unilever New Zealand’s 2020 4-day workweek trial reported reduced employee stress and absenteeism while maintaining work quality.
• A rolling pilot with 41 companies in the US and Canada saw 69% of respondents report a decrease in burnout with none of the companies expressing an interest in returning to a 5-day week.

The private sector has demonstrated significant support for a shorter workweek.

• Morning Consult found that 87% of 1,047 workers surveyed would be interested in a 4-day workweek (at 10 hrs per day for 40 hours) and 82% believe it would be successful.
• A Resume Builder poll of 600 qualified US respondents found 20% of business leaders offer a 4-day workweek option in some capacity.
• Several prominent companies including Kickstarter, thredUP, and Buffer offer permanent 4-day workweeks.

Other countries have switched to shorter workweeks.

• France established a 35-hour workweek in 2000 for some qualified workers and is considering a 32-hour week; there is evidence the 35-hour week helped redistribute working hours across income groups, improve worker well-being, and reduce gender gaps.
• A new Belgian law took effect in Nov 2023 giving workers the option to condense their existing 38-hour workweek into 4 days instead of 5 (employers can refuse the request with good reason).
• Several countries are piloting or have piloted 4-day workweeks within their private sector including Germany, Portugal, Spain, Iceland, and South Africa.

A shorter workweek could benefit the economy in unique ways.

• A shorter workweek could have trickle-down effects such as lowering healthcare costs through a healthier workforce and reducing emissions from work commutes.
• More days off could benefit the economy through growth in spending on sectors such as hospitality and consumer products.

LESS SUPPORTIVE OF A 32-HOUR WORKWEEK

A 32-hour workweek is unrealistic for many industries and should not be mandated.

• There is no statistical merit to mandating a nationwide 32-hour workweek; if it works for some companies, they should be free to implement changes on their own.
• A 4-day workweek is more feasible for office jobs but not for industries that operate continuously or where there are existing staff shortages such as healthcare and childcare.
• A number of companies participating in the 2023 UK pilot decided not to maintain a shorter week because it drove up costs from a need to hire additional staff.
• It would be easier for tech companies and small companies with leaner operations to reduce work days than for every company; larger companies across time zones have found it more difficult.

A nationwide 32-hour workweek would drive up inflation and hurt businesses.

• A mandated 32-hour workweek would have the effect of increasing costs by 25% per labor hour and force employers to either increase prices or send jobs overseas.
• Employees would ultimately see their cost of living go up from a 32-hour workweek because companies would have to increase prices of the goods they buy due to increased production costs.
• Reduced working hours for full-time employees would likely drive up part-time hiring to account for extra hours and ultimately have a net downward pressure on wages.

Supporting evidence used by proponents of a shorter workweek is flawed.

• The argument that productivity has significantly outpaced worker compensation over the past 50 years fails to account for nonwage benefits such as health insurance and social security which, paired with income, effectively erase that gap.
• Many of the large pilot studies referenced by proponents are biased toward specific types of companies and outcomes; for example, 66% of the companies in the large UK study had less than 25 employees and were predisposed to exploring the 4-day workweek concept.
• Positive interpretations of shortened workweek trial results fail to account for the costs to participants; for example, the Icelandic government had to pay ~$30M annually to hire more healthcare workers during Iceland’s trial and a 2017 trial in Sweden shortening the workweek for nurses found it was too expensive to scale.
• Trial respondents are employees that inherently would be expected to prefer fewer working hours and may inflate the positive benefits of the trial.

Competing evidence suggests shorter workweeks in other countries have not been effective.

• Japan shortened its workweek from 46 to 30 hours from 1988 to 1996 and experienced 20% lower economic output than would have been expected.
• A 2006 IMF working paper found that French workers weren’t any happier after their country’s workweek reduction from 39 to 35 hours.

Current American working habits are core to the country's prosperity and economic strength.

• Working hard has been central to pushing the US ahead of other countries and, with other nations now working longer, a shortened workweek would reduce its ability to compete.
• Technology improvements were meant to enable Americans to do more with the same amount of time so society can be collectively better off than in the past – not just as well off; Americans are 30x wealthier today than before the Industrial Revolution due to productivity improvements.

From the source

Read more from the full text of the bill and select primary sources:

• Full text of the Senate bill: Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act
• Full text of the existing workweek law: Fair Labor Standards Act 
• List of jobs exempt from the proposed rules: Fair Labor Standards Exemptions
• UK 4-day workweek trial results: 4 Day Week Global – UK Trial (2023)
• Impact study of Japan's shortened workweek: Population aging, government policy and the postwar Japanese economy (2022)

Be heard

We want to hear from you! Share your perspective on a shortened workweek and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Reply to this email in the format of your choosing (text, audio, or video). Below are topic ideas to consider.

• Do you support a nationwide 32-hour workweek in the US?
• What do you see as the biggest benefits of a shortened workweek? The biggest challenges?

Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.

#BTW

A Beyonce throwback to ring in the weekend.