As artificial intelligence (AI) expands and grows, many fear it might make many jobs obsolete. However, there is potential for AI in its inevitable expansion to reshape industries, change how we work and improve productivity. Senator Bernie Sanders has seized this potential as an opportunity to completely change the way we approach work and the hours committed. In a recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, the Vermont senator argued that artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally changed labor dynamics. He stated that the resulting surge in productivity should benefit workers, not just corporate executives. His proposal envisions a federally mandated 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay, effectively rewriting the social contract for the modern era.
Sanders argues that technology has made American workers more efficient than ever before. He believes that the financial gains from this efficiency are currently being hoarded by the top 1% rather than benefitting the working class. His solution is to legally redefine the workweek to reflect modern technological capabilities. This move would fundamentally alter the Fair Labor Standards Act and reshape the American economy to favor human lives over corporate capital interests.
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act
The core of Sanders’ proposal is the “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act,” introduced in the Senate as S. 3947. On top of proposing a shift in the workweek, this legislation mandates overtime pay for hours worked over the 32-hour workweek. Currently, federal law requires employers to pay time-and-a-half only after 40 hours. Sanders argues if AI has brought an increase in efficiency, there is no necessity to have people working 40 hours a week.
To allow businesses to adapt to changes, the bill proposes a phased implementation period of 4 years. This gradual rollout is designed to mitigate the immediate financial impact on small business owners. Sanders emphasizes that this transition must come with strict protections against pay cuts to ensure workers maintain their current standard of living.
The legislation also includes provisions to protect workers from excessive daily hours. It would require overtime pay for any workday exceeding 8 hours, preventing compressed schedules that exhaust employees. Furthermore, it mandates double-time pay for workdays that extend beyond 12 hours. These measures aim to prevent employers from compressing a 40-hour workload into 3 or 4 extremely long days, ensuring the extra day off allows the worker an actual day of rest.
Labor unions have rallied behind the bill, including major organizations like the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers (UAW). They argue that the 40-hour standard is an outdated relic of the industrial manufacturing era. Supporters claim that in an information economy, long hours yield diminishing returns and hurt families. The bill currently faces significant hurdles in Congress but has successfully shifted the national conversation toward worker time sovereignty.
Doing More With Less
Sanders bases his argument on a widening gap between worker output and worker compensation. Data from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows a stark divergence beginning in the late 1970s. Between 1979 and 2019, net productivity rose by roughly 59.7%, while hourly pay increased by only 15.8%. This vastly divergent growth, where workers create more value than what they are paid, is what Sanders finds disparaging.
This “productivity-pay gap” suggests that the benefits of technological advancement have bypassed the labor force. In previous decades, specifically between 1948 and 1973, productivity and wages grew in tandem. Sanders contends that the current disconnect proves the system is rigged against the average employee. He argues that if technology does the work, human hours should decrease rather than profits simply increasing for shareholders.
Critics often claim that reduced hours will inevitably lead to reduced economic output. However, Sanders points to the “efficiency dividend” that AI and automation provide to the modern workplace. If an employee can complete a task in 4 hours that used to take 8, they should not be penalized with more work. Instead, they should effectively “own” that saved time, reclaiming their lives outside of the office.
The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT has accelerated this scenario in our current workplace. Tasks that once required days of drafting or coding can now be completed in minutes, changing the nature of work. Sanders posits that without federal intervention, corporations will simply pocket these time savings as profit. A shortened workweek acts as a mechanism to force the distribution of these technological gains back to the workers who create them.
Success Stories from Abroad
Sanders’ proposal is not a theoretical experiment; it is based on real-world data from other nations. In 2022, the United Kingdom conducted the world’s largest trial of the 4-day workweek. The pilot program included 61 companies and involved approximately 2,900 workers across various industries. The results provided compelling evidence for the efficacy of reduced hours without sacrificing commercial performance or output.
The findings from the UK trial were overwhelmingly positive for both employees and businesses. A staggering 92% of participating companies decided to continue with the 4-day schedule after the trial ended. Revenue for these companies did not drop; in fact, it rose by an average of 1.4% during the trial period. This challenges the assumption that fewer hours equals less profit, suggesting a smarter way to work exists.
Iceland conducted similar trials between 2014 and 2021 involving 2500 people across 100 workplaces. This number represented over 1% of the nation’s entire working-age population. Researchers found that productivity remained the same or improved in the majority of workplaces. As a result, 86% of Iceland’s workforce has now either moved to shorter hours or gained the right to do so. Many researchers deem the Icelandic trials as a “crucial blueprint” for how other trials can be organized around the globe.
These global examples undermine the arguments of American critics who predict economic collapse. Companies reported a 57% decline in staff turnover, saving massive amounts on recruitment and training costs. Employees reported significantly lower levels of stress and higher job satisfaction, creating a more stable workforce. Sanders insists that American workers deserve these same benefits and should not lag behind their European counterparts.
Burnout and Economic Costs
The modern American workplace is currently facing a severe crisis of burnout and stress. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) links long working hours to various health issues. These include heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and severe mental health declines. The cost of treating these conditions places a massive burden on the US healthcare system and reduces overall life expectancy for workers.
Sanders argues that a shorter workweek is a public health necessity. Overworked employees are less productive, more prone to errors, and more likely to take sick leave. By reducing the workweek to 32 hours, employers could see a noticeable reduction in absenteeism. A healthier workforce is ultimately a more efficient and profitable one, creating a win-win scenario for the economy.
Mental health statistics in the US paint a grim picture of the current status quo. Anxiety and depression rates are at historical highs, particularly among younger workers entering the labor force. The lack of leisure time prevents individuals from engaging in exercise, community service, or family care. A 3-day weekend offers a necessary reset period that a 2-day weekend cannot provide.
Business Owners Push Back
Despite the data, opposition to the 32-hour workweek remains fierce within the business community. Senator Bill Cassidy, the ranking Republican on the Senate labor committee, has been a vocal critic. He argues that the government should not mandate business operations or interfere with free markets. Cassidy warns that such regulations would crush small businesses that operate on “razor-thin margins” and lack corporate resources.
Opponents contend that while large tech companies might adapt, service industries cannot. A restaurant or a construction firm cannot simply use AI to make up for lost hours. If a waiter works fewer hours, the restaurant must hire another waiter to cover the shift. This forces labor costs up significantly, which critics argue will lead to higher prices for consumers.
The US Chamber of Commerce has also voiced strong opposition to the bill. They claim that it creates a rigid, one-size-fits-all solution for a complex economy. They argue that flexibility should be negotiated between employers and employees, not dictated by Washington. There is a fear that this could accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to countries with cheaper labor, hurting American competitiveness.
Small business owners have expressed their concerns about the logistical nightmare of scheduling around a 32-hour cap. They argue that finding qualified, reliable staff is already difficult in the current labor market. They also argue that forcing businesses to hire 20% more staff to cover the same operating hours could be financially fatal for many local shops.
Warfare and Autonomy
Sanders’ concerns about AI extend far beyond the office cubicle or the factory floor. In an interview with NBC News, he raised alarms about the military applications of autonomous technology. He warned that we are “not all that far away” from the development of robotic soldiers.
The senator argues that removing human risk from combat makes war too easy to wage. If politicians do not have to worry about letters to grieving mothers, they may choose conflict more often. The barrier to entry for violence becomes dangerously low when only machines are lost. This creates a terrifying potential for endless, automated global conflicts fought by algorithms.
Sanders drew a connection between the “soulless” nature of AI warfare and the dehumanization of the economy. In both cases, technology is used to distance decision-makers from human consequences and suffering. Whether it is firing workers or firing missiles, algorithms strip away empathy and accountability. He urged for immediate regulation to prevent this dystopian future from becoming our reality.
The development of lethal autonomous weapons systems is already underway in major military powers. Sanders calls for international treaties to ban or strictly regulate these technologies before it is too late. He views this as an existential threat comparable to nuclear proliferation in the 20th century. Without checks, AI could make human life collateral damage in algorithmic disputes.
Oligarchy in the Digital Age
While Sanders sees the benefits of AI and automation, he also believes it exacerbates current wealth inequalities. Sanders frequently points out that the top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. A recent Oxfam report highlights that billionaire wealth grew by trillions in a single year. This accumulation is largely driven by the tech sector and AI speculation, funneling money upward.
Tech moguls like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg are investing billions into AI development. Sanders fears that without intervention, these investments will only cement their status as oligarchs. If AI replaces labor, the owners of the AI will capture 100% of the value. The working class would be left with neither jobs nor income in this case.
Sanders describes this as a drift toward oligarchy, where a handful of families control the nation. He argues that democracy cannot survive such extreme concentrations of economic power and influence. The 32-hour workweek is one method to redistribute this wealth back to the people. It forces the “owners of the robots” to pay for the leisure of the workforce.
The senator warns that the political power of these tech giants is already distorting policy. Lobbying efforts by major tech firms often block meaningful labor reforms and tax changes. Sanders calls for a grassroots movement to demand that technology serves the many, not the few. He believes the economy is at a breaking point and requires structural correction.
Read More: People Over 40 Should Only Work Three Days a Week, Study Concludes
Adapting to a New Reality
Passing the 32 Hour Workweek Act does not come without contention. With a divided Congress, the likelihood of immediate federal legislation is low in the current term. However, Sanders sees this as a long-term fight for the soul of the nation. He draws parallels to the decades-long fight for Social Security and the minimum wage, which also faced initial rejection.
We may see individual states or progressive cities attempt to implement similar measures first. Several state legislatures have already introduced bills to incentivize a 4-day workweek for municipal employees. These “laboratories of democracy” could provide the proof of concept needed for federal action. Union negotiations will also play a critical role in setting new industry standards across the country.
The United Auto Workers recently put the 32-hour week on the table during contract talks. While they did not win it immediately, they successfully normalized the demand for future bargaining. Sanders believes that as AI disruption grows, this demand will move from radical to necessary. The automation of jobs will leave society with no other choice but to share the work.
Ultimately, Sanders envisions a future where work is not the center of human existence. He argues for a society where technology liberates humans to pursue education, art, and family. This requires a fundamental shift in how we value human time versus corporate profit. The 32-hour workweek is just the first step in that direction for the American worker.
Conclusion
Bernie Sanders has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging the entrenched norms of American capitalism. His proposal for a 32-hour workweek is a direct response to the AI revolution. It asks a simple question: who should benefit from the end of human labor? The data suggests that a shorter week is both possible and profitable.
However, the political and economic resistance to such a change will be immense. Business interests will fight to maintain the 40-hour standard that has existed for eighty years. Yet, with burnout rising and AI advancing, the status quo seems increasingly unsustainable. Exercise your rights as a worker; the future of your time depends on it.
Read More: Australian Company Offers Employees 4 Day Workweek