• The idea of a 32-hour workweek has gained steam over the years, and some businesses are trying it.
• Now, a group of progressive staffers are hoping to bring it to Congress.
• They're calling on lawmakers to enact 32-hour weeks on Capitol Hill when Congress isn't in session.

The 32-hour workweek has been steadily growing more popular. More and more businesses are experimenting with versions of it, and many workers say it makes them not just happier, but more productive.

Now, some are hoping to bring it to the halls of Congress.

In an open letter set to be sent later on Thursday, the Congressional Progressive Staff Association will call on members of Congress to consider implementing a "rotating" 32-hour workweek for staff.

"By establishing a rotating 32-hour workweek for District and DC staff, you can help increase retention, boost productivity, and improve the quality of life for your team," reads the letter.

Congress has a unique schedule — and unique workplace arrangements.

When the House or Senate is in session, lawmakers are in Washington taking votes, attending committee hearings, and working long hours alongside staff out of their Capitol Hill offices. When they're out of session, lawmakers are typically back at their district offices, meeting with constituents and holding events.

Under the proposed plan, staffers in Washington would work a 32-hour week when lawmakers are back in their districts, while district-based staffers would work a 32-hour week when lawmakers are in Washington.

The letter floats multiple possible versions of a potential 32-hour workweek, including having every employee work 8 hours for the same 4 days, staggering when employees' workweeks take place in order to ensure the office is staffed for all five days of the week, or having employees work five days a week with reduced hours each day.

"Working 32 hours, employees have a more substantial reprieve from work and therefore are able to complete the same tasks in less time," the letter reads. "If implemented for Congressional staff, Members could see the same increase in job satisfaction among their teams, while maintaining or increasing their level of productivity."

Michael Suchecki, a spokesman for the Congressional Progressive Staff Association, told BI in an interview this week that the proposal is not about bringing further perks to what's already a prestigious job, but to "set a precedent for everyday working Americans across the country, and help turn the page to what the future of the workweek can look like for everyone."

In the letter, the staffers argue that making the change will help to combat not just burnout among staffers but also turnover, a common occurrence given that staffers can often make more money with less demanding hours at private-sector jobs in Washington.

"We need to make sure that Congress is still able to draw in and retain the best talent, as opposed to having one of the highest turnovers of any industry in the world," said Suchecki.

Some in Congress have proposed legislation to implement a 32-hour workweek nationwide. Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced the "Thirty Two Hour Workweek Act."

• Some US workers are embracing AI, seeing it as a career booster.
• A survey from KPMG US found that half of workers believe automation has helped them at work.
• Training is the primary lever employers have for retaining workers, a KPMG exec told BI.

Some US workers appear to be warming up to artificial intelligence.

In a KPMG US survey, half of respondents said automation — including AI — has boosted their professional abilities. Just shy of half said that automation would bring new career opportunities.

By comparison, 28% of workers said they might lose their jobs to automation, which has been widely touted as a concern. In a survey of managers last year, KPMG found greater unease about the possible toll of technological gains.

The latest findings are notable because they appear to indicate that workers are becoming more conversant with tech like AI — and not just ignoring it or fearing that it will replace them, John Doel, a principal in the KPMG US human capital advisory practice, told Business Insider.

"As adoption increases, people are getting more comfortable with the impact that's going to have on their careers," he said.

About seven in 10 surveyed said they use "automation tools" at least weekly, and one in three said they use them daily.

Doel said the rates at which workers are adopting the technology suggest that many are chipping away at a "fear factor" that might have existed around AI.

KPMG US surveyed more than 1,800 US workers at companies with more than 5,000 employees. About six in 10 of the respondents were managers.

Building skills to build their career

Some eight in 10 respondents agreed with the idea that building skills is important for their career. And about one in four workers said chances to learn are one reason they're staying in their jobs. Meanwhile, 22% said having the opportunity to learn and build their skills made them consider different roles.

Doel said that should be a sign to employers that investing in workers is a way to keep them. In the past year, he said many workers, particularly younger ones, have considered leaving their jobs. The employers that are helping their workers add skills are more likely to hang onto them.

"It's the No. 1 thing they could do" to retain workers, Doel said.

Even with training, however, limiting quitting could be a challenge for some employers years after the job-hopping frenzy of the Great Resignation. In the survey, 42% of employees said they'd considered leaving their roles in the past year. Millennials, who represent the biggest slice of the nation's workforce, were the most likely age group to say they'd considered it.

The main reasons workers thought about it weren't new: About one-third pointed to work-life balance, while a similar share identified insufficient pay. Another third said "feeling disrespected" at work animated their thoughts of resigning.

Doel said it's also not surprising that the survey highlighted a gap between what workers want and what employers want regarding where work gets done.

Five years since the pandemic rejiggered how many workers do their jobs, flexibility around where they work remains key for many employees. Seven in 10 survey respondents said remote work helped them balance the demands of their jobs with caretaking responsibilities.

Even as some high-profile employers — including Amazon, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs — have called workers back to the office, workers in the survey indicated they liked some degree of autonomy even though they see the office having benefits.

Forty-seven percent of survey respondents reported being more productive in the office, while 62% said the social aspects of working in the office helped foster a stronger corporate culture and their own sense of belonging.

Ultimately, Doel said, it appears that many employers and their employees have settled into a truce on the issue.

"That's not the top priority of organizations anymore," he said, referring to return-to-office mandates. "We've kind of reached a homeostasis."

Using AI for work-life balance

In some cases, Doel said, workers appear to be eyeing tech like generative AI as an avenue for achieving better work-life balance.

"They're looking at GenAI as one of the enablers of a more flexible work environment," Doel said. Workers who use tools like it to get their work done more efficiently might feel they could have a greater say in how they structure their jobs, he said.

Employees also see other areas where they could enjoy more flexibility. Two-thirds of respondents said they believed that a four-day workweek of 32 hours could achieve the same level of productivity as a 40-hour week. And 45% said efficiency gains from GenAI could help make a four-day week more feasible.

"They think it's going to allow them to be more flexible in their work-model contract with employers," Doel said, referring to workers' views on GenAI.