Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 167

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

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.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. 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 page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. 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

  2. Mar 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Labor

  3. Apr 9, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Withdrawn from committee on Labor and referred to committee on Rules pursuant to Assembly Rule 42 (3)(c)

  5. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 49, Noes 48

  6. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1