Project 2025 calls for extending the 40-hour workweek to a 160-hour work-month, allowing employers to avoid paying overtime by cutting an employee’s hours later in the month if they worked extra hours near the start of the month.
Reasoning:
Project 2025 did propose allowing employers and employees to calculate overtime over extended periods, such as two or four weeks, which could potentially reduce the amount of overtime paid. The proposal suggested flexibility in choosing these periods rather than mandating a 160-hour work-month for all. The claim accurately reflects that this change could lead to fewer overtime payments, but it incorrectly implies that every company would be required to adopt this model.
Fact or Fiction?
Mostly Fact. The claim is largely true, though it omits the fact that the proposed model is optional and not mandatory for all employers.
Discover more from News Facts Network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
