Double Overtime Pay Act

Summary#

The Double the Wage for Overtime Act of 2026 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It would replace “one and one-half” with “two” in the Act’s overtime provisions; its stated goal is to raise the overtime pay rate. The bill has been referred to a House committee and is not law.

• Where the Act requires overtime pay, the bill would set the rate at twice the employee’s regular rate instead of one and one-half times.
• It also changes that multiplier in four specified provisions of the Act’s section on exemptions and special rules.
• The changes would take effect 180 days after enactment.

What it means for you#

• Employees covered by the affected overtime rules: For overtime hours, the rate would be twice the regular rate. That is a higher overtime rate, not a doubling of all wages.
• Employers: They would have to pay the new rate where the Act requires overtime pay under the changed provisions.
• Workers and employers: The bill changes the rate, but does not set out a new application or review process. The supplied text does not include the full Act, so the effect on particular exemptions and special rules cannot be verified.
• Other costs and rules: The bill does not directly change taxes or create a new benefit program.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s fiscal or payroll-cost impact.

• Employers would owe more for each affected overtime hour than under a one-and-one-half-times rate.
• The bill provides no cost estimate or funding for government implementation.

What is unclear#

• Which workers would be affected by the changes to the four specified exemption and special-rule provisions; the full Fair Labor Standards Act was not supplied, so their current wording and effect could not be checked.
• The bill does not define “regular rate” or explain how it is calculated; it changes the multiplier attached to that term.
• The bill gives no estimate of costs to employers or government.
• The bill’s passage is uncertain, and the 180-day start period would begin only if it is enacted.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that employees who qualify for overtime would receive more pay for each overtime hour.
• Changing the statutory multiplier directly could raise overtime compensation without creating a new benefit program or application process.
• The 180-day delay before the changes take effect would give employers time before the new rate starts.

Case against#

• One concern is that employers would face higher payroll costs for affected overtime hours; the bill provides no estimate of how large those costs might be.
• The bill changes specific overtime-rate language but does not explain how the changes to the four special provisions would affect workers or employers.
• Because the bill does not itself explain which workers qualify under the existing Act, its practical reach may be difficult to assess without reviewing the full Act.