Senate Bill 672
Compliance by employers with certain laws whose enforcement depends on the proper classification of persons as employees or nonemployees and providing penalties
Topics: Contractor, Employment, Forfeiture, Labor and Industry Review Commission, Workforce Development, Department of
Became law
The governor signed it on May 12, 2010. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Apr 7, 2010
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Apr 22, 2010
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Apr 22, 2010
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2009 Wisconsin Act 292
Latest entry in the official record, May 13, 2010: “Published 5-26-2010”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Under current law, an employer engaged in the construction of roads, bridges, highways, sewers, water mains, utilities, public buildings, factories, housing, or similar construction projects (employer) who misclassifies an employee as a nonemployee willfully and with intent to evade any requirements of the laws relating to worker's compensation or unemployment insurance is subject to a $25,000 fine for each violation.
This bill requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), for purposes of promoting and achieving compliance by employers with certain employment laws through the proper classification of persons performing services for an employer as employees and nonemployees, to do all of the following:
Read the full summary Show less
1. Educate employers, employees, nonemployees, and the public about the proper classification of persons performing services for an employer as employees and nonemployees.
2. Refer complaints of misclassification of employees as nonemployees to other state or local agencies that administer laws whose enforcement depends on the proper classification of employees and cooperate with those state or local agencies in the investigation and enforcement of those laws.
The bill also permits DWD, for purposes of ensuring that an employer is properly classifying the persons performing services for the employer as employees and nonemployees, to investigate allegations that an employer is in violation of certain requirements under the employment laws. Those requirements (employment law requirements) are as follows:
1. That the employer is maintaining records identifying all persons performing work for the employer, including the name, address, and social security number of each of those persons.
2. That the employer is maintaining worker's compensation coverage for its employees as required under the worker's compensation law.
3. That the employer has provided to DWD the information that employers are required to provide with respect to newly hired employees.
4. That the employer is maintaining records of the hours worked by its employees, the wages paid to those employees, any deductions from those wages, and any other information that the employer is required to keep under rules promulgated by DWD relating to hours of labor and the minimum wage, and is listing deductions from wages as required under current law.
5. That the employer is in compliance with the unemployment insurance laws.
If DWD determines that an employer has failed to demonstrate compliance with the employment law requirements, DWD may serve on the employer a notice of DWD's intent to issue an order requiring the employer to stop work (stop work order) at the locations specified in the notice. The notice must advise the employer that the stop work order will be issued within three business days after the date of the notice unless the employer provides information satisfactory to DWD indicating that the employer is in compliance with the employment law requirements at each location specified in the notice.
If within three business days after service of the notice an employer does not demonstrate compliance with the employment law requirements, DWD may serve a stop work order on the employer, which takes effect as provided in the order unless the employer appeals the order by requesting a hearing to review the stop work order, in which case the stop work order is automatically stayed until the date on which a decision on the appeal is issued. An employer that does not stop work as required under a stop work order may be required to forfeit $250 for each day beginning on the day on which the stop work order is served and ending on the day on which the employer provides evidence satisfactory to DWD that it has stopped work or is in compliance with the employment law requirements, whichever occurs first. The stop work order remains in effect until the employer provides evidence satisfactory to DWD that it is in compliance with the employment law requirements and pays the forfeiture required under the bill.
A request for a hearing to review a stop work order must be filed within ten days after service of the order. If a request for a hearing is filed within those ten days, an appeal tribunal, which is an attorney licensed to practice in this state who is appointed by DWD to conduct review hearings, must hold the hearing within 14 days after receipt of the request and issue a decision in writing within seven days after the hearing affirming, reversing, or modifying the order to stop work and forfeiture.
If the appeal tribunal finds that the employer has not complied with the employment law requirements, the automatic stay of the stop work order is lifted and the order remains in effect until the employer provides evidence satisfactory to DWD that the employer is in compliance with the employment law requirements and pays the forfeiture.
The employer or DWD may request a review of an appeal tribunal's decision by petitioning the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) for review of the decision within 21 days after the decision was mailed to the employer's last-known address and may commence an action for the judicial review of a decision of LIRC within 30 days after the decision was mailed to the employer's last-known address.
A stop work order that is in effect remains in effect during the pendency of a review by LIRC or an action for judicial review. An employer that violates a final stop work order of DWD or final decision of an appeal tribunal, LIRC, or a court affirming such an order is subject to a forfeiture of $1,000 for each day of violation. An employer may seek review of a forfeiture imposed for a violation of a final stop work order or final decision affirming such an order in the same manner as an initial stop work order is reviewed under the bill.
Finally, the bill provides that an investigation, order, or decision under the bill does not preclude or otherwise impair or affect any other action that is required or permitted under the employment laws of this state to enforce a requirement under any of those laws.
Who's behind it
4 senators are its . All 4 are Democrats.
3 more lawmakers .
See all 7 names Hide the names
Authors (4)
- Spencer Coggs · Democrat, Senate
- Dave Hansen · Democrat, Senate
- John Lehman · Democrat, Senate
- Bob Wirch · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (3)
- Joe Parisi · Democrat, Assembly
- Christine Sinicki · Democrat, Assembly
- Terry Van Akkeren · Democrat, Assembly
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
How lawmakers voted
There were 2 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Labor vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 15, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Joint Committee on Finance vote to recommend it
Passed, 13 to 2 · Apr 20, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 13, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
May 13, 2010
The new law was published.
-
May 12, 2010
The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 292.
-
May 11, 2010
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 22, 2010
The Assembly passed it too.
-
Apr 22, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Apr 22, 2010
The Assembly received it.
-
Apr 22, 2010
The Senate passed it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 13 to 2.
-
Apr 16, 2010
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Apr 15, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Apr 14, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Apr 14, 2010
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Apr 7, 2010
Sent to the Senate Committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs.
-
Apr 7, 2010
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Apr 7, 2010 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Wirch, Coggs, Hansen and Lehman;Cosponsored by Representatives Parisi, Sinicki and Van Akkeren
- Apr 7, 2010 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs
- Apr 14, 2010 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Apr 14, 2010 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Apr 15, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Apr 15, 2010 · Senate
Report passage recommended by committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Apr 15, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 16, 2010 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)
- Apr 19, 2010 · Senate
LRB correction
- Apr 19, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Report passage recommended by joint committee on Finance, Ayes 13, Noes 2
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 21, 2010 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-22-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Apr 22, 2010 · Senate
Read a second time
- Apr 22, 2010 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 22, 2010 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Apr 22, 2010 · Senate
Read a third time and passed
- Apr 22, 2010 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 10:08 A.M. on 4-22-2010 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 31
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in
- Apr 22, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 23, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Apr 28, 2010 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled on 4-28-2010
- May 11, 2010 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 5-11-2010
- May 12, 2010 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 5-12-2010. 2009 Wisconsin Act 292
- May 13, 2010 · Senate
Published 5-26-2010
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote