The Colorado House advanced a bill Thursday that would raise the overtime threshold for agricultural workers, a little more than a year after the original overtime law went into effect.

“Farms and ranches — they’re struggling. They’re facing fees, taxes, fuel costs and overregulation,” bill sponsor Representative Ty Winter, a Trinidad Republican, said. The bill, he said, is in response to difficulties faced by the state’s small and family-owned operations.

It was one of the most contentious debates on the House floor this session, dominating the conversation for two days. The bill passed on a 33-32 vote. All of the votes against the measure came from Democrats.

Image

Senate Bill 26-121 would increase the number of hours farmworkers must be on the job before qualifying for overtime pay from 48 to 56 hours. Supporters say that the existing overtime regulations put pressure on farms and ranches that often operate at the economic margins, and they can ultimately result in hour caps or even pursuit of less labor-intensive crops.

“Hours are being limited, workers are making less money and putting their families at risk,” said bill sponsor Representative Matthew Martinez, a Monte Vista Democrat, during the initial debate Wednesday. “The intent of the overtime provision in (the existing law) was to have farmworkers earning more, and that has not happened.”

A 2025 study from the Colorado State University Extension found that 9% of agricultural employers regularly paid overtime in the first half of that year. Survey respondents said that in response to the overtime law, they reduced hours for their employees, changed practices in order to use fewer workers and shifted to products that require a smaller workforce.

“There is not a single farmer in my area that has said ‘We do not want to pay our workers overtime. We do not want to pay our workers better.’ That is not there,” Martinez said. “But when they’re either losing money, or not making money in the last two years and taking out loans to stay afloat or they are making $50,000 in revenue — that is not a choice.”

When farms and ranches offer their workers fewer hours to prevent overtime pay, supporters of the bill argued, those workers will often take shifts at other locations to make ends meet. By allowing more hours of regular pay, those same workers can earn enough money in one place.

Representative Dusty Johnson, a Fort Morgan Republican, shared the story of a friend who, after working 45 hours at one farm, just under the current overtime threshold, would drive a few hours to pick up 15 additional hours elsewhere.

“Getting an extra two to three hours with overtime pay is not the same as getting another 15 to 20 hours somewhere else. And he was driving himself exhausted,” she said. “They felt they were forced to go travel to other farms to pick up more hours, spending more time on the road than they were with their family so that they could feed their family.”

Representative Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, pushed back on that logic.

“One of the concerning arguments I’ve been hearing is the idea that this will give workers more hours and they’ll make more money,” she said on Thursday. “I’m frustrated with that argument, because that argument is relying on the idea of ‘We will pay them more, as long as we can pay them less for longer hours.’”

40-hour overtime law died

The measure is one of two competing bills this session that aimed to tweak Colorado’s farmworker overtime law, which passed in 2021 through an agricultural workers’ rights bill and went into effect in 2025. One of those bills sought to lower the threshold to 40 hours, which is the overtime standard in most other industries. That Democrat-led proposal died in committee about a month ago, leaving only SB-121 to work through both chambers.

It was amended down in the Senate in a small concession to opponents, from 60 hours to the 56 hour policy. It passed that chamber in a 19-16 vote, with opposition coming solely from Democrats. It was sponsored by Senator Robert Rodriguez, a Denver Democrat, and Minority Leader Cleave Simpson, an Alamosa Republican, in that chamber.

Image

Opponents said the bill is a rollback of rights for farm workers and would be a unique carve-out of overtime laws for one industry.

“A 56-hour threshold sends the message that farm workers can be worked longer and harder than everyone else before they earn the same protections as any other worker. That is selective inequality, plain and simple,” said Representative Tammy Story, a Conifer Democrat. She said she wants to see a 40-hour overtime threshold.

In the House on Wednesday, progressive lawmakers offered a pile of amendments for the bill. None passed.

“I want to be honest about the political dynamics here, because the context matters,” Representative Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat, said on the House floor Wednesday. “The efforts behind (this bill) had been driven by farm owners and agricultural industry groups. The people whose wages are directly affected — the workers — are not the ones asking for this change.”

The bill is opposed by labor groups and progressive organizations like the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, New Era Colorado, and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. It is supported by groups such as the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and the Colorado Corn Growers Association.

The Agricultural Workers’ Rights Coalition condemned the vote in a statement Thursday afternoon.

“Farmworkers feed our state. They should not be forced to work longer hours for less pay,” they wrote in a statement emailed by the nonprofit law firm Towards Justice. “Today’s vote is a step backward for fairness, for dignity, and for the health and safety of workers who already face some of the most demanding conditions in any industry.”

The differences between the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill now need to be reconciled before it heads to the governor’s desk.