The 40-hour workweek has been federal law since 1940. A bill reintroduced in Congress last week would cut it to 32, and the mechanism it uses to get there carries direct consequences for benefits plan design.
Rep. Mark Takano of California and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont reintroduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act on September 11. Filed as H.R. 10323 in the House, the bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to lower the overtime threshold for nonexempt employees from 40 hours a week to 32. The reduction would phase in over four years, starting at 38 hours and stepping down to 32. The bill also prohibits employers from cutting workers' pay or benefits as the threshold drops.
Employers could still schedule workers beyond 32 hours. Those additional hours would cost more. Time-and-a-half for hours over 32 in a week, time-and-a-half for hours over eight in a day, and double time for hours over 12.
Passage, however, is unlikely. Republicans control both chambers, and the bill has been introduced in some form four times since 2021 without advancing beyond committee. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said at a 2024 hearing that the proposal would "destroy some employers." The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has previously opposed similar legislation, pointing to its one-size-fits-all approach and the compliance burden it would place on multi-state employers. SHRM had not issued a statement on the 2026 bill as of publication.
Whether or not the bill advances, the no-cut provision raises a structural question that benefits advisers encounter regularly - what happens to benefit eligibility when scheduled hours change?
Under the ACA's employer mandate, applicable large employers, those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees, must offer health coverage to workers averaging 30 or more hours a week or face a penalty. The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act does not change that threshold. But it creates a scheduling tension between the two figures.
If the cost of scheduling workers above 32 hours rises sharply, employers in retail, manufacturing, and healthcare would have a financial reason to restructure toward 32-hour weeks. Workers moved to 32-hour schedules stay above the ACA's 30-hour coverage threshold and retain eligibility, but the composition of the benefits-eligible workforce could shift in ways that affect plan costs and participation rates.
The daily overtime provision adds a separate layer. In healthcare, where three 12-hour shifts are a standard nursing schedule, every shift beyond eight hours would trigger time-and-a-half. The likely employer response - restructuring to four eight-hour shifts - would reduce overtime exposure but change how coverage eligibility accrues for workers whose hours were already near thresholds.
The regulatory environment around employer-sponsored health plans is already unsettled. As recent analysis of the ACA rulemaking and employer compliance pipeline found, legal uncertainty around employer-sponsored health plans is unlikely to resolve quickly, with active cases still moving through the courts. Adding a phased shift in the FLSA overtime threshold would introduce a scheduling-driven variable to plan design conversations that are already running alongside active litigation.
The no-cut provision is the element advisers would need to track most closely. Employers who respond to higher overtime costs by reducing scheduled hours cannot simultaneously reduce benefits eligibility without violating the bill's terms. That constraint, if enacted, would make hours-based eligibility restructuring a more complex compliance question than it has historically been, adding another layer to plan design conversations that already carry significant administrative weight.
