Just about every piece of legislation that is proposed in Washington is intended to benefit some interest group, with the costs hidden and widely spread across the rest of society. Then, of course, the sponsors craft a nice rationale for it, so the bill sounds irresistible.

In this AIER article, Gary Galles looks at a new proposal for a mandatory four-day workweek. Its sponsors are progressives who say that the bill would benefit lower-paid workers who supposedly are being short-changed.

Galles writes,

Some companies have tested a four-day workweek and have decided to switch, which supporters overgeneralize to imply that all workers would gain from mandating it. But those firms which have chosen to try it were not a random sample. They were those that faced circumstances where it was most likely to work well. So the generalization does not follow, because if employers and employees thought they would benefit from a 32-hour work week, there is no law preventing them from advancing their interests by doing so. If they do not choose that option, they reveal that they believe it would worsen their circumstances.

He then shows how other pieces of federal labor legislation, such as the Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” requirements, are instances of self-interest for unions masquerading as enlightened public policy.

I’ll put on my legal hat and close with this comment: The 32-hour workweek bill is unconstitutional. This is not “regulating interstate commerce” in the meaning of Article I (that language was intended to keep the states from interfering with trade across their borders); rather, it is dictating the terms of labor contracts, which the Founders most certainly did not want Congress to do.