HR-10323-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Mark Takano (D-CA)
What it does
The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act so that covered employers must pay overtime at 1.5 times the regular rate for hours over 32 in a workweek, instead of over 40. It would also require overtime after 8 hours in a workday (1.5 times pay up to 12 hours, double pay after 12). For employees covered under the 1966 amendments, the threshold would phase down from 38 hours to 32 over three years, starting at least 180 days after enactment. Employers could not cut pay, the regular rate, or benefits because of the change for those employees. Existing exemptions and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Hourly workers who now work 40-hour weeks and would earn overtime pay or work fewer hours. Workers who now work long days and would receive daily overtime. Family caregivers and others who might gain schedule flexibility. Unemployed or underemployed workers, if employers add staff to cover hours, though that effect is uncertain.
Who is hurt
Employers with hourly staff, especially small businesses and those with thin margins, which could face higher labor costs or need to hire more workers. Workers whose employers cut hours or shifts to avoid overtime, which could reduce take-home pay despite the pay-protection clause for some employees. Consumers who might pay higher prices if costs are passed on. Sectors with continuous operations, such as health care, manufacturing and hospitality, which may face scheduling costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 40-hour standard dates to 1940 while productivity has risen sharply since, so workers should share those gains through shorter hours or higher pay. They contend that pilot programs, such as the 2022 UK four-day week trial with 61 firms, reported maintained output and lower burnout. They also argue the phase-in and the pay-protection clause give employers time to adjust and protect take-home pay.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that raising labor costs for every hourly hour above 32 would burden small businesses and could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring or raise prices. They contend that voluntary pilot programs involved self-selected firms and may not carry over to industries with fixed staffing needs, such as health care and manufacturing. They also argue that the daily overtime rule and the pay mandate limit scheduling flexibility that many workers and employers prefer.
Constitutional context
Congress sets wage and hour rules under the Commerce Clause, and United States v. Darby (1941) upheld the original Fair Labor Standards Act's hours and overtime rules. Employers could raise Due Process or contract-based challenges to the pay-protection clause, but these are unlikely to be strong given the long-settled federal authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would change the statutory threshold, the Department of Labor would enforce it, and courts would hear private suits. The savings clause in section 18(a) would continue to let states set stricter hour and overtime rules.
Historical precedent
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set the first national overtime threshold at 44 hours and lowered it to 40 hours by 1940, and later amendments such as those in 1966 extended coverage to more workers.