Are you ready for overtime after 32 hours? Some Progressives in Congress want to make it happen...
An old idea that is picking up new steam...
Are you ready for overtime after 32 hours of work?
It’s an old idea that appears to be picking up new steam in some circles.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, employers must pay non-exempt employees 1.5 times their hourly wage rate for every hour worked over 40 hours.
Now, there are some in Congress who want to see a four-day work week, and every hour over 32 hours to be paid at the 1.5 hourly rate.
Originally introduced last July as H.R.4728 - Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, while it has not been voted upon yet, the idea of a 32-hour workweek has picked up some momentum in recent months.
In December, the “Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) formally endorsed the 32-Hour Workweek Act,” according to the bill’s sponsor, Mark Takano [D-CA]. “This legislation would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime compensation for non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).”
“Work hours are highly unequal. Millions of people want to work more hours to earn more income while others want to work less to achieve a healthier work/life balance. A 32-hour work week will directly help those trying to achieve greater work/life balance, while freeing up hours that can be picked up by involuntarily part-time workers. In addition to that, shorter work weeks have important environmental benefits. Reducing Americans’ average work week is a key step towards achieving a better society,” stated the union-funded Economic Policy Institute last year.
Not a new idea.
The idea of a shorter work week is nothing new. For years, unions have advocated for shorter work weeks.
The International Association of Machinists in its union constitution [in PDF], had long advocated for a 36-hour workweek and, more recently, changed to “shorten the hours of labor to thirty per week, namely five days of six hours per day; Saturday to be a holiday.”
From a union’s perspective, a shorter workweek makes sense to ensure “full employment” for its members: More union members employed leads to greater financial security for the union as a whole.
Not banning long weeks, per se, just making them more expensive.
While Progressives’ formula would not ban a longer workweek—or require fewer hours—it would make it more expensive for employers to have workers work more than 32 hours.
During a time of high inflation (including wage inflation), high employee turnover, and a still-low labor participation rate, without adding additional workers to the workforce, substantially increasing labor costs on employers may have the unintended consequence of causing even higher inflation.
Something to watch for.
Given the mid-term election politics occurring in Washington, as well as the current political make up in the U.S. Senate, reducing the workweek to 32-hours is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
However, it is something to watch for, not only in Washington, but at the state and local levels as well.