Work less, lose more: Bernie Sanders’s 32-hour workweek fallacy

Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill titled “Thirty-Two Hour Work Week Act” to the U.S. Senate, which would reduce the full-time workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours.

His bill would not only cut the number of working hours but also mandate that employers maintain workers’ pay and benefits while receiving fewer hours of labor in return. This proposal is as seductive in its appeal as it is flawed in its foundation.

Sanders imagines a stress-free utopia, where productivity and paychecks remain unscathed despite a significant reduction in work hours. This assumption is, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, economic folly. Productivity, the backbone of economic vitality, is not so easily decoupled from hours worked, and the resultant decrease would inevitably lead to one of two outcomes: either businesses suffer from reduced profitability, or they pass the increased costs on to consumers.

Businesses, especially those with high fixed overhead costs, would have to hike the prices of their goods and services to offset lost profits. The outcome? Americans, working fewer hours for ostensibly the same pay, would face higher costs of living, potentially rendering necessities unaffordable for many.

Sanders argues that workers deserve a 32-hours workweek because, despite technological advances, they are not making more money, whereas billionaires are getting richer. But his proposal’s damage to small businesses would be greatest. For the local retailer, the family restaurant, and the start-up, each hour of work is essential for their survival and success. Arbitrary cuts to the workweek will sink these businesses, stifling their growth and thwarting economic growth.

The historical argument for reducing working hours posits that it could eliminate unemployment by inflating the supply of jobs. Yet this half-baked theory ignores the fact that businesses might be forced to downsize if they can’t sustain their workforces on reduced hours, inevitably increasing unemployment rates. Moreover, the notion that additional workers could seamlessly be hired overlooks the considerable time and resources required to find and train new employees, particularly for roles that require high skill levels.

In a recent op-ed, Sanders and Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers, bemoaned the “sad reality” that American workers log more hours than their counterparts in Japan, the United Kingdom, or Germany. They neglect the fact that America’s economic preeminence is not merely the product of more hours logged, but of the ingenuity and dynamism that those hours have fueled.

For example, in Germany the average workweek may hover around 34.2 hours, but this is a symptom of an economy grappling with stagnant growth and a dire shortage of skilled labor, rather than any voluntary embrace of leisure. On the other hand, nations such as Belgium, which have transitioned to a four-day workweek, haven’t actually reduced total working hours; they have merely restructured the conventional 40-hour workweek into fewer but longer workdays.

Our own economy’s size and our citizens’ wealth are buttressed by an industrious culture and an economic framework that allows and even encourages hard work to be rewarded. American labor is not the endless toil of Sisyphus; it is the persistent and innovative force that has carved out America’s economic preeminence. The prosperity and stature of our nation have been built on a foundation where industry and the pursuit of excellence are not only valued but prized as the engines of progress and wealth creation.

Economic diversity across different states and industries means that a 32-hour workweek could benefit some while harming others. Industries that require continuous operation, such as healthcare and manufacturing, may struggle with staffing, while tech companies with different productivity measures might adapt more easily. A blanket policy fails to consider these nuances.

Such a move would be akin to unilateral economic disarmament. In response to Sanders’s bill, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) noted that “we won’t maintain the status of being the world’s wealthiest nation if we kneecap the American economy with something which purports to be good for the American worker but indeed will lead to offshoring of jobs seeking for a lower-cost labor force.”

He is correct. Right now, American businesses vie against international competitors, and many are operating on razor-thin margins.

The solution doesn’t lie in government-mandated working hours, but in business autonomy. History offers a precedent; in 1926, Henry Ford famously adopted a 40-hour week for his employees, a revolutionary move that predated its legal mandate by over a decade. What we need now is a similar spirit of innovation. Businesses should be encouraged, perhaps through tax incentives, to adopt flexible working arrangements that promote work-life balance without compromising productivity.

Senator Sanders’ bill, although driven by a laudable desire to alleviate worker stress, is a policy paradox that risks the very prosperity it seeks to protect. We should instead pursue solutions that harness the flexibility and ingenuity intrinsic to American enterprise, not those that shackle it to an ill-conceived pipe dream.

John-Paul S. Deol is a partner and head of the employment law practice at Dhillon Law Group, Inc.