Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2611’s proposed 32-hour workweek would raise costs, strain small businesses, and undermine Washington’s economic competitiveness.

Mark Harmsworth says Washington’s economy thrives on freedom, not mandates

Mark Harmsworth
Washington Policy Center

House Bill 2611 (HB 2611), introduced by Rep. Shaun Scott (D), proposes slashing Washington’s standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by redefining overtime thresholds. Effective January 1, 2028, employers would be forced to pay time-and-a-half for any hours beyond 32 in a week, ostensibly to boost worker well-being.

Mark Harmsworth, Washington Policy Center

While the bill’s preamble waxes poetic about reduced stress, better family time, and enhanced productivity, the bill ignores basic economic realities. This isn’t progressive policy, it’s economic malpractice that will destroy small businesses, inflate costs, and stifle growth.

At its core, HB 2611 amends RCW 49.46.130 to trigger overtime after just 32 hours, down from 40. Exemptions exist for salaried workers, agricultural employees, truck drivers, and others, but for the vast majority of hourly staff in retail, hospitality, and manufacturing, this means a seismic shift. Employers face a Hobson’s choice: cut hours to 32 and hire more staff to maintain output, or keep schedules at 40 and absorb massive overtime premiums.

Either way, costs skyrocket. The bill also tweaks paid sick leave accrual under RCW 49.46.210, shifting it from one hour per 40 worked to one per 32, accelerating benefits expenses.

Proponents claim this will improve morale and competitiveness, citing vague benefits from tech advancements. But let’s call this what it is: total fiscal suicide. Washington already grapples with high labor costs, including the nation’s highest minimum wage at $17.13 per hour. For a small business owner, as an example, a Seattle café operator, employing 10 full-time baristas at minimum wage, maintaining 40-hour shifts would add over $12,000 annually in overtime alone per employee (8 hours at 1.5x rate). That’s $120,000 extra for the team, not counting payroll taxes or the faster sick leave buildup. Where does that money come from? Higher prices for customers, reduced services, or layoffs.

Nationwide trials of shorter workweeks, often voluntary in tech firms, show mixed results at best. But mandating it statewide is reckless. Productivity doesn’t magically increase, it often drops as businesses scramble to cover shifts. Hiring more workers means added recruitment, training, and administrative burdens, costs that small employers can’t absorb like the big corporations can. In rural areas, where labor pools are thin, this could force closures. And for workers? Fewer hours mean smaller paychecks unless overtime is chased, defeating the “well-being” goal. Ironically, the bill’s agricultural exemptions highlight its hypocrisy, why spare farms but crush urban small businesses?

This one-size-fits-all edict ignores diverse industries. Public safety roles get partial carve-outs, but what about healthcare or logistics, already strained? Similar proposals in California estimated billions in added state costs for public employees alone. Washington taxpayers would foot the bill for government workers’ overtime or hiring surges.

HB 2611 exemplifies Olympia’s detachment from reality. Instead of easing regulations to foster growth, lawmakers impose burdens that drive jobs out-of-state. Policymakers should reject this shortsighted bill and focus on real solutions: tax relief and incentives for innovation.

Washington’s economy thrives on freedom, not mandates.

Mark Harmsworth is the director of the Small Business Center at the Washington Policy Center.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion column, Washington Policy Center’s Mark Harmsworth criticizes House Bill 2611, which would require overtime pay after 32 hours per week starting in 2028. He argues the change would raise employer costs, lead businesses to cut hours, reduce take‑home pay for workers who depend on 40‑hour schedules, and place disproportionate pressure on small businesses and rural communities without delivering the promised productivity or well‑being benefits.

What Grok notices

Explains the bill’s core policy shift—moving the overtime threshold to 32 hours per week (starting in 2028, as described)—and links it to broader wage-and-hour changes discussed in the column.
Uses concrete examples aimed at small businesses to illustrate how higher overtime costs could change staffing decisions, scheduling, and pricing.
Notes exemptions and carve-outs referenced in the column (including agriculture and certain salaried workers), framing the debate around who would be most affected and who would not.
Contrasts voluntary shorter-workweek experiments in some sectors with the implications of a statewide mandate, arguing that mandated changes carry higher risk for employers with variable demand.
Points to primary sources for verification—reviewing the bill text and committee-hearing testimony—to test the assumptions behind projected costs and workforce impacts.

Questions worth asking

How would a 32-hour overtime threshold affect staffing flexibility in industries with seasonal or variable demand (hospitality, manufacturing, health care, agriculture-adjacent services)?
If employers respond by limiting hours, how might that change take-home pay for hourly workers who depend on consistent 40-hour schedules?
What evidence from voluntary four-day or shortened-workweek trials is most relevant to predicting outcomes under a statewide mandate, and what conditions made those trials succeed or fail?
How have other high-cost or high-minimum-wage states handled similar overtime-threshold proposals, and what were the measurable effects?
What alternatives—tax relief, scheduling flexibility options, targeted benefits, or sector-specific pilots—could address worker well-being without broadly increasing labor costs?

Research this topic more

Also read:

Washington governor talks potential return of SuperSonics with NBA commissioner
Gov. Bob Ferguson spoke with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver about the possibility of bringing the Seattle SuperSonics back as the league weighs future expansion decisions.
Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief.
Is it time to lower the legal limit for blood alcohol content to 0.05 in the state of Washington?
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and families affected by impaired driving are urging Washington lawmakers to lower the legal BAC limit to 0.05, citing prevention data and personal testimony from Clark County residents.
Expert in homebuilding has several tips on how to make housing affordable
Veteran homebuilder Tracy Doriot shares his perspective on why regulations, taxes, labor shortages, and permitting delays are driving housing costs higher in Clark County and across Washington.
POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs.

Opinion: Olympia wants a 4-day work week. It won’t work out as the politicians think it will