Some Capitol Hill Staffers Suggest Going To A 32 Hour Work Week
Well, it looks like the Congressional Progressive Staff Association (CPSA) has sparked a bit of a firestorm this week with their bold—and, let’s face it, eyebrow-raising—proposal for a 32-hour workweek.
Yes, you heard that right: the very staffers tasked with helping lawmakers navigate legislation, manage constituents, and craft policy are asking for fewer hours on the clock but with no reduction in pay. Their reasoning? Burnout and the need for “a more sustainable approach to work.”
Now, to be clear, no one is denying that working on Capitol Hill can be demanding. Long hours, tight deadlines, and the pressure to keep up with the political machine are part of the job. But let’s pause for a second to unpack this: we’re talking about staffers whose salaries come directly from taxpayers, asking for a reduced workweek on the premise that somehow productivity wouldn’t take a hit. If your first reaction to this is to blink a few times and say, “Wait, what?”—you’re not alone.
The proposal suggests piloting the program for six months to see if it yields “increased outcomes.” On paper, it’s framed as a way to promote work-life balance without sacrificing the quality of work. But in reality, it feels like a tone-deaf ask, especially when millions of Americans outside the bubble of Washington, D.C., are juggling jobs, side gigs, and family responsibilities just to stay afloat. Public service isn’t supposed to be a cushy, punch-in-and-out gig. It’s a calling—one that demands long hours and hard work, just like it always has.
Predictably, the backlash was swift and, frankly, brutal. Republican lawmakers didn’t hold back in ridiculing the idea. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) summed up the sentiment of many when he said, “My advice to these ‘progressive staffers’ is simple: find a new industry. Public service is clearly not meant for you.” Ouch. But honestly? He’s got a point.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) took it a step further, suggesting that progressive staffers logging zero hours might actually help their party more than the 32-hour plan. It’s a stinging critique but underscores a broader frustration: the perception that progressive lawmakers and their staffers are out of touch with the average American worker. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) chimed in, reminding everyone that public service is about hustling hard for the taxpayers who foot the bill—not about finding ways to lighten your workload.
The reality is that most Americans would love better work-life balance, but they’re not in a position to march into their boss’s office and demand fewer hours for the same pay. So, when D.C. staffers—who already enjoy perks like generous health benefits and job security—make this kind of ask, it understandably strikes a nerve. It comes across as entitled, tone-deaf, and wildly disconnected from the struggles of everyday Americans.
What’s more, the argument that productivity wouldn’t suffer under a 32-hour workweek feels more like wishful thinking than reality. Sure, some studies have shown that shorter workweeks can increase efficiency in certain industries. But in the high-pressure world of politics—where crises can erupt at any moment, and constituents expect around-the-clock attention—less time on the clock means less time to get things done. That’s just math.
And let’s not ignore the optics here. While staffers are lobbying for fewer hours, constituents are dealing with real challenges—skyrocketing inflation, a struggling economy, and rising crime, to name a few. Asking for a four-day workweek without a pay cut is hardly the kind of move that wins over public trust, especially when so many Americans are already questioning what, exactly, D.C. is doing to improve their lives.