The Sanders 32-hour workweek bill was reintroduced in Congress last week, with Senator Bernie Sanders and California Representative Mark Takano arguing that gains from artificial intelligence should shorten working hours rather than swell corporate profits.
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would reduce the standard workweek for nonexempt employees from 40 hours to 32, requiring employers to pay overtime for any hours above the new threshold or cut schedules accordingly.
Employers could still schedule longer weeks but would not be permitted to reduce affected workers’ weekly compensation or benefits as a result of the change.
How the Sanders 32-hour workweek bill would phase in
The reduction would not happen overnight. According to WTTW Chicago News, the standard would drop to 38 hours in the first year, 36 in the second, 34 in the third, and reach 32 hours four years after the law takes effect, starting at least six months after enactment.
The bill would also establish overtime pay after eight hours worked in a single day, and double pay after 12 hours. Under current federal law, covered nonexempt employees receive time-and-a-half only after exceeding 40 hours in a week, with no federal requirement for daily overtime.
‘At a time when artificial intelligence and robotics will radically transform our economy, it is imperative that the financial gains from this new technology benefit working families, not just a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs,’ Sanders said in announcing the bill.
Takano, who first introduced the legislation in 2021, argued that labour law has not kept pace with decades of technological change. ‘Since then, cell phones, the internet, and now AI have increased worker productivity,’ he said. ‘Work has fundamentally changed. It’s time that labour standards caught up.’
AI productivity case and the evidence on shorter hours
A 2026 analysis by Boston College sociologist Juliet Schor for the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute estimated that AI-led productivity gains could allow 35 million US workers, representing 28% of the workforce, to move to a 32-hour week within a decade.
There is also trial evidence behind the proposal. In a six-country study co-authored by Boston College sociologists Wen Fan and Schor, conducted with advocacy group 4 Day Week Global, nearly 2,900 workers across 141 companies cut their schedules by roughly five hours a week. After six months, participants reported less burnout, better physical and mental health, higher job satisfaction, and improved work ability.
Sanders has also pointed to the productivity-pay gap as part of his case. Since 1979, net productivity has climbed roughly 90% while typical workers’ hourly pay has risen about 33%, according to Economic Policy Institute data.
Sanders introduced a Senate version of the bill in 2024. He has framed the push as the next chapter in a labour struggle stretching back more than a century, noting that the current 40-hour standard was cemented by the Fair Labor Standards Act signed in 1938.
Opposition remains in the Senate. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, argued during a 2024 hearing on an earlier version of the bill that the added labour costs could raise prices and threaten businesses operating on thin margins. His committee would consider any Senate version of the legislation.
‘A 32-hour workweek is not a radical idea,’ Sanders said. ‘It’s time to reduce the stress level in our country.’
The bill’s fate in the Senate will depend in part on whether Cassidy’s committee agrees to schedule hearings on the reintroduced legislation.
