A newly reintroduced 32-hour workweek bill would rewrite one of the basic building blocks of federal wage law: how many hours a nonexempt employee can work before overtime kicks in. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Mark Takano, who represents California’s 39th congressional district, brought the proposal back before Congress in mid-September 2026, with the goal of amending the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Under the current version of the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers owe overtime pay to nonexempt workers only after 40 hours in a single week. The Sanders-Takano proposal would phase that threshold down over four years, moving first to 38 hours, then 36, then 34, and finally to 32 hours, while leaving employees’ pay and benefits intact throughout the transition.
This is not the first time the idea has surfaced. Takano introduced an earlier version in 2021 and again in the House in 2023, and Sanders carried a Senate companion bill in 2024. Several labor unions have backed the latest version, according to Takano’s office.
Sanders framed the proposal as a response to automation, arguing that gains from new technology should ensure "the financial gains from this new technology benefit working families, not just a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs," rather than flowing mainly to executives and shareholders.
Not everyone supports the idea. David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth, a group that describes itself as an economic conservative organization, has argued that shortening the workweek could push employers to cut jobs and trim benefits, making everyday costs harder for workers to manage rather than easier.
Because Republicans currently control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the bill has mostly Democratic support, its odds of becoming law remain slim, according to reporting from USA Today.
Would a 32-hour workweek bill change overtime in California or Washington?
If it becomes law, the bill would apply everywhere the Fair Labor Standards Act already applies, including California and Washington. California workers already have broader protections than the federal floor, since state law requires overtime after eight hours in a single workday in addition to the 40-hour weekly rule, so a lower federal weekly threshold would add to those protections rather than replace them. Washington largely mirrors the federal 40-hour weekly standard, so nonexempt employees there could see a more direct change in when overtime pay starts if the measure is enacted.
For now, this is pending legislation, not a change to current wage law. Nonexempt employees in California, Washington, and every other state are still owed overtime only after 40 hours in a week under existing federal law, and that would change only if Congress passes the bill and it is signed into law.
Common questions
What does ‘nonexempt employee’ mean under federal overtime law?
A nonexempt employee is a worker who does not fall under an exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as certain executive, administrative, or professional roles, and who is therefore entitled to overtime pay once they work beyond the legal weekly threshold.
Has the 32-hour workweek bill already become law?
No. As of mid-September 2026, the bill has only been reintroduced in Congress and has not passed the House or Senate, so the existing 40-hour weekly overtime threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act still applies.
Would this bill reduce California’s existing overtime protections?
No. California’s overtime rules already exceed the federal standard by requiring overtime after eight hours in a workday, and a lower federal weekly threshold would supplement those state protections rather than take anything away.
Source: Bill introduced to cut full-time workweek to 32 hours, or pay overtime (WSOC TV)
This post summarizes third-party reporting for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
