Why Washington’s 4-Day Workweek Bill Misses the Mark

The dream of a three-day weekend is no longer just a workplace fantasy; it is becoming a central pillar of modern labor rights discussions. Across the globe, trials of the 4-day workweek have shown staggering success, citing increased productivity, better mental health, and higher employee retention. In Washington State, House Bill 2611 (HB 2611) recently attempted to bring this revolution to the Pacific Northwest.

However, while we support the spirit of the bill, HB 2611 was missing a key component of a successful 4-day workweek bill — a "no reduction in pay" clause for hourly workers. To truly implement a 32-hour workweek, legislation must protect the most vulnerable members of the workforce: hourly employees.

In this post, we’ll break down what was in HB 2611, why it has stalled in committee, and why any "true" 4-day workweek bill must include a "no reduction in pay" clause to be successful.

What was Washington’s HB 2611?

Proposed by State Representative Shaun Scott (D-Seattle), HB 2611 sought to redefine the standard workweek in Washington. The bill aimed to shift the threshold for overtime pay from the traditional 40 hours down to 32 hours.

Key Takeaways of the Bill:

• Overtime Shift: Employers would be required to pay time-and-a-half to any employee working more than 32 hours in a single week.

• Sick Leave Accrual: The bill proposed increasing the rate of paid sick leave. Currently, workers earn one hour of sick leave for every 40 hours worked; HB 2611 would have changed that to one hour for every 32 hours worked.

• Implementation Timeline: If passed, the changes would have taken effect on January 1, 2028.

Representative Scott argued that Americans are overworked compared to their international peers, noting that U.S. employees work roughly 279 more hours per year than those in the United Kingdom. He pointed to San Juan County as a local success story. After a two-year trial of a 32-hour workweek for government employees, the county saw a 216% increase in job applicants and saved taxpayers $2 million due to reduced turnover and lower sick-day usage.

Why HB 2611 Stalled in Committee

Despite the momentum of the "work-life balance" movement, HB 2611 has failed to move forward. As of February 2026, the bill is stalled in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee. It missed crucial deadlines for being voted out of policy committees, meaning it is unlikely to become law in its current form this session.

The reasons for the stalemate are multifaceted. Business groups and industry advocates, such as the Washington Hospitality Association, raised alarms about the economic impact. They argued that for small businesses with thin margins, a sudden shift to a 32-hour overtime threshold would represent a massive labor cost increase that many could not survive. Critics also pointed out that industries like agriculture and construction, which rely on seasonal schedules and weather-dependent timelines, cannot easily be "legislated" into a shorter week.

However, the most significant pushback didn't just come from business owners—it came from those concerned about the very workers the bill was supposed to help.

The Fatal Flaw: The Missing Pay Protection for Hourly Workers

While the headlines surrounding HB 2611 focused on "shorter weeks" and "more rest," a dangerous reality was hidden in the fine print: The bill contained no protections for the take-home pay of hourly workers.

This is the "incomplete" nature of the current proposal. Under HB 2611, if an employer decides they cannot afford to pay overtime after 32 hours, their simplest move is to cap all hourly staff at 32 hours.

Doing the Math for Working Families

Consider an hourly worker earning $20 per hour.

• At 40 hours: They earn $800 per week (before taxes).

• At 32 hours (with no pay protection): They earn $640 per week.

For a family living paycheck to paycheck, that is a 20% pay cut. You cannot pay rent with "extra time." You cannot buy groceries with "work-life balance."

Expecting a low-wage worker to accept a smaller paycheck in exchange for more time ignores the brutal reality of the current cost-of-living crisis. A true 4-day workweek should liberate workers from burnout, not force them into a second job just to make up for lost wages.

What a "True" 4-Day Workweek Bill Must Look Like

If Washington—or any state—wants to lead the nation in labor reform, they must ensure that worker’s take-home pay is protected.

Any successful legislation must explicitly state that an employee's weekly salary or take-home pay cannot be reduced because of the reduction in hours. For hourly workers, this would mean a mandated increase in their hourly rate so that their 32-hour week equals their previous 40-hour week's pay.

The Path Forward for Washington Labor

The stalling of HB 2611 in committee should be seen as an opportunity rather than a defeat. It is a chance for lawmakers to go back to the drawing board and draft a bill that is actually complete.

We support the spirit of Representative Scott’s proposal. We agree that the 40-hour workweek is a relic of the early 20th century that no longer fits the digital age. But we cannot support a bill that is effectively a pay cut for the working class.

The people of Washington deserve a 32-hour workweek with 40-hour pay. Until a bill reflects that reality, hourly workers will continue to be left behind.

What Can You Do?

If you believe in a 4-day workweek that protects every worker’s paycheck:

• Contact your representatives: Tell them that you and your family want a shorter workweek and protections for hourly workers.

• Support local trials: Encourage your own employer to look into 4-day workweek trials that maintain full salary.

• Stay Informed: Follow the progress of labor bills in Olympia to ensure that "flexibility" doesn't become a code word for "lower wages."

The 4-day workweek is the future—but only if it's a future that everyone can afford.