The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) set workplace norms that are still in use almost ninety years later. The FLSA established the 40-hour standard workweek and overtime protections for workers. It guaranteed pay at a rate of 1.5 times the standard hourly wage for work past the 40-hour mark. Overtime protections were designed as a safeguard for workers—to prevent employers from overworking employees and to require firms to pay workers fairly for their labor when they put in extra time on the job. By making long hours more expensive, the overtime premium incentivizes employers to hire more workers and spread the work around.

But as the country’s workforce has shifted over the nearly 90 years since the FLSA was enacted, the FLSA’s overtime rate has not.

Recently, the Double Wage for Overtime Act was introduced by Rep. Casar (D-Texas) in the House and by Sen. Gallego (D-Ariz.) in the Senate. The Act will strengthen overtime protections for more than 13 million workers by amending the overtime rate for the first time since 1938. It would raise overtime pay from 1.5 times a worker’s regular rate of pay to double the regular rate.

The potential to significantly increase workers’ earnings is notable. A worker making $25 an hour and working 10 hours overtime a week for a full year would gain $6,500 more in annual income, all else equal. But, as with any change to overtime policies, employers could respond to the new standard differently, based on the needs of their workplace. In particular, some workers who often work overtime may work fewer overtime hours, as employers adjust schedules and spread work to minimize having to pay the overtime premium. But, due to the double overtime rate, overall compensation for working people will still rise.

The Double Wage for Overtime Act also serves as a mechanism to narrow race and gender pay gaps by boosting pay in historically undercompensated, overtime-eligible sectors, where women and workers of color are disproportionately represented, due to the broad impacts of racism and sexism on labor market outcomes.

Finally, the bill offers a strong deterrent to employers who might otherwise overwork employees. Stronger overtime protections incentivize fairer and more reasonable scheduling, and act as a protection against unpredictably long hours. And, by incentivizing employers to spread hours out to employees who work less than 40 hours a week, stronger overtime protections are also likely to reduce the number of workers who are working part-time “involuntarily” (because they can’t get enough hours).

Any impact on employment is likely to be small, but positive. Some might argue, as they often do in opposing minimum wage increases, that requiring businesses to pay their employees more would reduce employment. But the overwhelming body of evidence on minimum wage increases shows that they raise wages without causing meaningful job losses.

Moreover, increasing the overtime premium differs from increasing the minimum wage in an important way. A higher minimum wage requires employers to raise the pay of all workers earning below the new minimum. By contrast, employers have considerable flexibility in responding to a higher overtime premium. Rather than paying the higher overtime rate, they could hire additional workers or offer more hours to employees who currently work part-time. In part because employers have these alternatives, any employment effect of increasing the overtime premium is likely to be positive.

The legislation is far better for working people than Republicans’ “no tax on overtime” policy. Although a tax deduction may sound like a compelling way to help people who work overtime, it is a deeply flawed policy with very uneven benefits. It largely benefits middle-to-high-income earners, provides only modest tax savings for those workers who do qualify, leaves some workers worse off, and preserves financial gains for employers who overwork employees. Strengthening overtime standards—instead of offering gimmicky tax cuts—is the real way to deliver for working people.

As mentioned above, if this legislation were to take effect, businesses would have choices and flexibility as to how to comply. Firms may hire additional employees, which would increase employment in the overall economy. They may also choose to innovate and become more efficient in how they direct their employees’ use of time. Reducing excessive numbers of work hours may also improve worker health, concentration, and lead to fewer fatigue-related accidents, which would increase productivity in the workplace, benefiting workers and employers alike.

Though employers can respond to an increase in overtime protections in many ways, the increase will raise labor costs, as it puts money in workers’ pockets. Importantly, this is unlikely to translate into higher prices for consumers. Research on minimum wage increases, which raise labor costs, finds little-to-no inflationary impact from minimum wage increases. And minimum wage increases are a much greater shock to labor costs than an increase in the overtime premium. Increases in the minimum wage affect all hours worked for impacted workers, while the higher overtime rate will only affect hours worked past 40 in a week, a small fraction of total hours worked.

In fact, the Double Wage for Overtime Act will boost affordability by helping ensure that workers actually earn enough in wages to cover the cost of living with dignity and security. The potential income increase for working-class households would have a positive effect on local businesses as well. When workers have more money in their pockets, they can put that money back into their communities.

In short, increasing the overtime wage premium would strengthen one of the nation’s foundational labor standards, putting more money in workers’ pockets while encouraging employers to create jobs, instead of relying on excessive overtime. The Double Wage for Overtime Act is a straightforward opportunity for lawmakers to tackle continued affordability concerns. It is a long overdue modernization of overtime pay that will benefit millions.