They don't want to pay for benefits and overtime. You move the bar to 32 hours, and shift workers will become a rare and valuable commodity. Not a one will be able to survive doing such work and the ones that can will have better work that is just a good jump in pay away from removing that person from the wage slave pool forever. Wait, let these esteemed business owners explain it better...

https://i.postimg.cc/zBrMSr9B/temp-Image7u-BXx2.avif

The job I last worked before retirement was administrative with few consistent repetitive tasks and hard to measure productivity. But if you work something that makes or does 800 of the same something in a 40 hrs/week, and you could in fact manage that in 32 hrs/week thru closer focus, increased automation or other process improvement that should be supported. I would worry that there is danger in the details. I worked jobs where your level of some benefits-- vacation, retirement funding, seniority and others were based on actual hours worked, not weeks/months/years on the job. So you work 40 years but now your retirement is defunded by 20% as an example in a 32 vs 40 hour week.

If 32 vs 40 means less productivity, and we remain in a labor shortage, I am sure businesses would worry that just makes their hiring challenge that much greater. Obviously it would be great for the individual worker's work/life balance if they had an extra day off per week with no loss in pay, benefits and job security but somehow feels there could be unintended consequences for many.

... but the same could be said of the first few times the 40 hour work week came up.