Over the course of the covid-19 pandemic, we have lost almost 1,000,000 American lives — more than double the loss during World War II. The trauma, for many, has forced confrontations with mortality and grief, both for the people we’ve lost and the lives we once led. It has also inspired an awakening to how precious our time on this planet is — and how we choose to spend that time.

Many have come to a simple conclusion: Time is just as valuable and just as important as money. This is why I’ve introduced the 32-Hour Workweek Act. Our laws should change as our country changes and must adjust to meet the needs of the American workers they were written to serve.

The 32-Hour Workweek Act empowers workers by redefining the standard workweek for certain hourly employees as 32 hours. This does not limit the number of hours a worker can work; it merely states that workers are entitled to overtime pay for more than 32 hours of work, rather than the current standard of 40 hours. Since introducing this bill in July of 2021, I’m proud to have earned the endorsement of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Employment Law Project (NELP), the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), and the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Imagine a grocery store clerk who works 40 hours per week and earns $10 per hour. In one scenario, according to the 32-Hour Workweek Act, the clerk’s employer could choose to maintain the employee’s existing hours and pay overtime for the additional 8 hours of work over 32 hours.  While the employee is normally compensated $400 for 40 hours of work, under the Workweek Act they would be entitled to $440 for 40 hours of work — the equivalent of a 10 percent raise.

Under a second scenario, the clerk’s employer could choose to cut the employee’s hours to 32 hours, then hire an additional worker to fill in the gap. Hiring additional workers would require the employer to dedicate time, energy and other resources to train new hires.

In a tight labor market, the decision should be a no-brainer: It would be easier and far more efficient for the employer to pay existing employees time and a half for time worked over 32 hours, as depicted in scenario one.

This legislation would affect workers in industries ranging from manufacturing to hospitality to retail. And it would be beneficial not only to workers, but to employers.

Additional benefits to a shorter week include reduced healthcare premiums for employers, lowered operational costs for businesses, and a positive environmental impact. A study out of the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that if working hours were reduced while pay was kept constant, there would be a correlating drop in carbon emissions due to reduced travel, more home-cooked meals rather than convenience foods, and more time spent locally.

The Workweek Act would not require overnight change. Rather, as in past transformations of American work culture, shifts in the labor market would be gradual; time would be provided for businesses to adapt.

Only a century ago, a five-day workweek and a two-day weekend were novel concepts that many employers were hesitant to accept, and child labor still existed. In 1908, a New England cotton mill was one of the first businesses to implement a 40-hour workweek so that Jewish workers could observe the Sabbath. It wasn’t until 1940 that the Fair Labor Standards Act mandated a 40-hour workweek nationwide.

Related Articles

A 32-hour workweek is not a radical proposition. In four-day workweek experiments conducted in countries such as Iceland, New Zealand, Spain and Japan — and within some companies here in the United States — the results have been encouraging. Workers have reported improved work-life balance, taken fewer sick days and spent less on child care. More flexible working schedules have also led to heightened morale and productivity.

Over the past two years, I’ve heard from so many people in my California district and across the country about how they’ve lost a friend or a relative, how they’ve lost a job or work opportunities, how their physical and mental health are suffering.

Americans want more time with their loved ones. More time to themselves. More time to tend to their obligations and interests outside of work. In a country as wealthy as the United States, people should be able to have all this — while earning a livable wage.

Mark Takano represents the 41st Congressional District.