Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session
the inapplicability of the prevailing wage law to projects in which the construction is contracted for by a private owner or developer and the completed projected is acquired by a local governmental unit or state agency.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Under the current prevailing wage law, certain laborers, workers, mechanics,
and truck drivers employed on a state or local project of public works must be paid
at the rate paid for a majority of the hours worked in the person's trade or occupation
in the county in which the project is located, as determined by the Department of
Workforce Development (DWD), and may not be required or permitted to work a
greater number of hours per day and per week than the prevailing hours of labor, that
is, no more than ten hours per day and 40 hours per week, unless they are paid 1.5
times their basic rate of pay (overtime pay) for all hours worked in excess of the
prevailing hours of labor.
This bill provides that the prevailing wage law does not apply to any project,
including a highway, street, or bridge construction project, in which the erection,
construction, remodeling, repairing, or demolition of the project is contracted for by
a private owner or developer and the completed project is leased, lease purchased,
or otherwise acquired by the state, a state agency, or a local governmental unit in lieu
of the state, state agency, or local governmental unit contracting for the erection,
construction, remodeling, repairing, or demolition of the project.
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Brooks (R) , Friske (R) , Gottlieb (R) , Gunderson (R) , Honadel (R) , Huebsch (R) , Kestell (R) , Knodl (R) , LeMahieu (R) , Meyer (R) , Montgomery (R) , Murtha (R) , Nerison (R) , Nygren (R) , Petersen (R) , Roth (R) , Stone (R) , Strachota (R) , Suder (R) , Tauchen (R) , Townsend (R) , Vos (R) , Ziegelbauer (I)
5 cosponsors
Harsdorf (R) , Kedzie (R) , Olsen (R) , S. Fitzgerald (R) , Schultz (R)
Votes
Suspending the rules (to take a vote immediately) needs a two-thirds majority — a higher bar than passing the bill, which needs a simple majority. That's why a suspension motion can show more Ayes than the passage vote that follows it. Glossary
Assembly: Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 49, Noes 48
Passed 49–48 Apr 13, 2010 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Gottlieb, Ziegelbauer, Brooks, Friske, Gunderson, Honadel, Huebsch, Kestell, Knodl, LeMahieu, Meyer, Montgomery, Murtha, Nerison, A. Ott, Petersen, Suder, Stone, Strachota, Tauchen, Townsend, Vos, Roth and Nygren;Cosponsored by Senators Harsdorf, Schultz, Kedzie, Olsen and S. Fitzgerald
- Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Labor
- Apr 9, 2009 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Withdrawn from committee on Labor and referred to committee on Rules pursuant to Assembly Rule 42 (3)(c)
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 49, Noes 48
- Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1