March 23, 2026 · LABOR AND INDUSTRY · 6,511 words · 28 speakers · 272 segments
Thank you. Thank you. So good morning.
Good morning.
I would like to call this meeting of the House Labor Industry Committee to order. Jonathan, please call the roll. Dawkins? Here. Brennan?
Here by designation.
Donahue?
Here by designation.
Jerold. Here. Gagner. Here by designation. Green. Here by designation. Haddock. Here. Inglis. Here by designation. Kincaid. Here. Kujuski. Here. Mirsky. Here. O'Mara. Here by designation. Scott. Here by designation. Young. Here by designation. James
Anderson Berger Bernstein Cooper Diori Fink Jones Rassel Reichard Rossi
We have a quorum Thank you. First I would like to call up House Bill 64
printers number 53, introduced by Representative Kahn. Ryan, please explain the bill. House Bill 64, printers number 53, creates a freestanding act that prohibits employers from disciplining employees who choose not to attend meetings where the employer discusses their religious or political opinions. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize Representative Kahn for brief remarks
on his bill. Thank you, Chairman Dawkins. Thank you, Chairman James. Thank you, members of the committee. So this work, this bill is simply about fairness. You know, when your boss controls your paycheck, your benefits, your schedule, sitting through a meeting about politics or about religion should be optional. Workers should not feel like they have to engage. This bill is simple. It does not restrict the ability of employers to express these views. Workers simply can't be punished for not sitting through it. So I ask for your support in this bill. House Bill 64. Thank you so much.
Thank you. The question is, will the committee report the bill? I will be offered Amendment A-02258.
Ryan, please explain the amendment. Amendment A-02258 makes changes to the definition section and adds enforcement provisions, including investigatory powers to the department and administrative penalties.
Thank you. The question is, will the committee agree to the amendment? Is there any questions? Now recognize Chairman James.
I think we do, but I'm not well organized. Who wants to talk on this? Anyone that wants to talk on the amendment?
No.
You can just hold it for the bill. You want to talk on amendment too?
I guess I'll talk on the amendment. I apologize for not being well organized. This is my second meeting in a row. We've heard from...
We're on 64, right?
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard from a number of different groups in the Commonwealth, including NFIB, the Pennsylvania Chamber, and now the ACLU, sharing comments with regard to First Amendment rights of employers and the question about its constitutionality overall. content based on restrictions of speech, which is what this bill appears to be subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding constitutional standards, and it was worth noting the federal court recently enjoined a similar California law. So with that in mind, I would like to ask the members of the Republican caucus to be a no on the amendment.
Thank you. Any other members want to be recognized? All right.
Seeing none, I would obviously urge members to support the amendment. Jonathan, please call the roll.
Dawkins?
Yes.
Brennan? Yes, by designation and all remaining Democrats being in the affirmative. James?
No.
Anderson?
No.
Berger?
No.
Bernstein?
Designation, no.
Cooper?
No.
De Orsi?
No.
Fink?
No.
Gleim?
No.
Jones?
Designation, no.
Rassel?
Designation, no.
Reichard?
No.
Rossi?
Designation, no.
The amendment passes. Thank you. The amendment 802258 is agreed to. Are there any comments or questions on House Bill as amended? House Bill 64 now recognized. Is that Representative Glow?
Dorsey.
Dorsey. Representative Dorsey.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important to note the array of stakeholder opposition to House Bill 64. I oppose the bill for reasons of restricting protected speech, and stakeholders of various types agree, including the ACLU. And quoting from their opposition letter, this is not a neutral regulation of workplace conduct. It is rather a direct restriction on what employers say and when they may say it. So for these reasons, I urge a no vote.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Representative Anderson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that this is actually well intended, and I respect Representative Kahn a great deal. And I believe that this is something that is important. My issue with the bill is once we add enforcement, especially now that we've added enforcement, it's pretty subjective. I think that there can be a lot of disagreements between what ideology you believe in as to whether something is political or was it political. If somebody comes in and somebody had said this prior, that somebody says, well, if Donald Trump is going to be elected or if Joe Biden is going to be elected, this is how it will impact our business. And that could be totally 100 percent justified to how their operations and how the employees are going to be treated or how the business is going to operate. I just think it's a pretty slippery slope when we start saying what is political and even what is religious. So for that, I'm going to be a no. I'm going to believe it's well intended, but it certainly restricts speech and it's just too subjective. as to what is a violation of the act and what is not. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Glopp.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also think it's well intended, but there are so many questions I have about the bill in general. One is the institution of higher education was not defined in the bill, and I'm just going to assume that it means colleges and universities. But why are not primary and secondary education institutions exempt from the bill?
Repeat that question again because I think we got a little lost there.
Yeah, I read the underlying bill, and it says in there that, well, it doesn't define the institution of higher education, okay? which I'm just going to assume that that means that it's colleges and universities. So if the goal is to protect institutions of higher education, then why did you not exempt primary and secondary schools as well? I just wonder if that was just missed in the bill.
Let us kind of check and see about that particular provision.
I don know if the maker that you are familiar with It under Section 8 I think Go ahead We can take a look at it Again this is for the employer It not for students It for employers
Sure. I mean, they employ a lot of people.
So that was just one of my questions. I also think that there needs to be a little more clarification. So if an employer is found in violation of the act, whether they're aware of it or not, they could be sued by each employee and also receive a fine of $2,500 per employee? Is it one, both? How is that in this bill, the actual violation and its fines?
You want to answer a little bit?
I don't have the bill in front of me. Maybe the executive director can take it.
So, Ryan, can you see if you can shed some light there?
Yeah, I believe it would be both. The department has the ability to levy administrative penalties, and the employees who have been disciplined for not participating in one of these would also have the ability to file a right of private action.
Okay. Yeah, I just have so many issues with this. I'm going to be a no, and hopefully we can work towards something that really makes sense to the employers and the employees. So thank you very much.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to be recognized? Oh, I have two more. So Representative Hedick and then Representative Kincaid.
Yes, I'd like to ask the maker of the bill, and I do not believe that this prohibits an employer from holding such a meeting. The caveat of this bill says you cannot discipline somebody that uses their constitutional right not to attend. It's about discipline of the person that chooses not to go or partake. So it does not stop employers from holding said meetings. It just enforces that an individual employee could choose not to go to that particular meeting because those beliefs may be held by the employer, not the employee. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yep. Thank you.
Rebtham Kincaid.
Thank you. I actually just kind of want to follow up on what Representative Haddock was talking about. that, yes, from the plain language of the bill, it's clear that this is about disciplining somebody for not participating. And so there are several layers to what would trigger a violation of this. One, that it would be a mandatory meeting that would discuss this, and two, that somebody would choose not to attend it. And then subsequent to that, that person would be disciplined. So there are sort of three things that have to happen in order to trigger a violation. So the idea that this infringes on free speech, certainly this strict scrutiny applies in any case where we talk about infringing free speech. but um but i don't see uh how the the aclu gets to a point in the language of of this legislation that says that um you know this would be a violation of the employer's free speech because it doesn't restrict what they can say it just restricts their ability to have other people hear it and that is not a right that any employer should have to to force their employees to listen to something that is not directly related to their employment. It's something that is an opinion. And again, they would have to take a disciplinary action in addition to somebody not participating in this meeting. So there has to be a negative employment action before any violation happens. So, you know, I don't see how, you know, this argument holds any water.
So thank you. Thank you. Can I say, Chairman, to that point, it's exactly why it took us so long to sort of get this bill to where it is today and get it out, because we wanted to make sure that we were on solid legal footing. And there are many states that have implemented what exactly what we are proposing here in Pennsylvania, and those bills are still in the books years later because of that. It does not restrict the free speech of any employer. Employers can still do it. What we're talking about is protecting employees from retaliation from that employer. So, again, the letter from the ACLU was also late last night, within the last, I think, 12 hours or so, and without any discussion with any members of this committee, including the staff who worked on this bill for the last how many months? I think we issued this bill over a year ago. So thank you.
Thank you. Representative Jones.
Thank you, Chairman. I wasn't going to speak on the bill, but Rep Haddock actually raised a couple questions in my mind. First of all, this strikes me as a trial lawyer's dream to a largely nonexistent problem. I've held a lot of company meetings and attended a lot, worked for a lot of outside firms as a consultant. I've never even heard of anybody calling a company meeting to talk about religion, and certainly not very rarely politics. So I just want two scenarios, if I could, Rep Khan. I call a company meeting. I have a friend who's in the wire business, so it's 90 percent of his cost is copper. So we'll pick on President Trump so as to not be nonpartisan, despite the genius of his policies. So I call a company meeting. I'm in the wire business. And it's a couple weeks before Election Day, talking about various subjects. And I say, by the way, if you vote for Trump and he puts in these tariffs, because we get most of the copper is sourced internationally, Canada in this case, one or two other places, but mainly Canada. These tariffs are really going to hurt our business. So just consider that when placing your vote. Have I violated this bill when I said that or not?
I can answer that one. I think no, because, again, I think it goes back to the employee having the discernment to attend that meeting. So if an employer decides to say if you vote for Trump, what have you, that has zero impact because the employee can then walk out of that meeting because they don't have to be subjected to sit in a meeting where you're advocating for a candidate who may not agree with you.
Okay, so I've got three more items on the agenda, and that employee can just stand up and walk out because I said that this politician's policies could be hurt, that they are publicly on the record as supporting, could hurt our business. That employee now gets to stand up and walk out of the room, as you just said. Is that correct?
If, again, you're calling a meeting and you're discussing maybe the growth of the business and then you dovetail into politics, it's always been the right for an employee if you are now suggesting them to do something outside of their work requirement, why should I have to be subject to listen to that?
Well, because you're an adult, and that's the way the world works. And everything everybody says, that's the nature of free speech. You work for me, and I'm paying your salary. So I have to be subject to hear you're nonsense if I work for you?
I'm answering a question about the policies that one statement, in this case, directly related to a business. If Trump, when he was running for office, said, which he did, he supports tariffs and the other candidate doesn't, and you say tariffs on Canadian copper are going to have a detrimental effect on our business. Maybe somebody just asked me the question and it wasn't even on the agenda. And I got three more points to cover that have nothing to do with it. You get to stand up and walk out. And then my, so I think that's the answer.
Even though you're, Chairman, if I may, you just said they already have the right to do that. So why do we even need the bill if they already have the right. Second of all, I call a company meeting next month. You get to say I'm not showing up because Mike mentioned a political candidate last time, or Mike said Merry Christmas. You can just not show up?
No, I think you're trying to use it as something different. It clearly states that the employee has the right to not attend meetings that have nothing to do with their work requirement. I think that's the basics of this, like, foundation of this bill. I don't know all these other scenarios in which we want to create, but as you mentioned, most businesses may not have this policy. Let's change the narrative here because if you end up working for someone who have totally different beliefs than you may have, And now they're subject subjecting you to a conversation that you do not feel comfortable having because for whatever reason you are entitled as an as an American on your first.
Oh, yeah.
Your first. What does that say?
Right.
Yeah.
First amendment rights that you don't you can express yourself and say, I don't need to be subject to this.
So, to your point, I think we're framing this bill differently than what the intention of the bill is, and it clearly says it. I think the question that you are posing, is an employer going to be held liable for having certain views? And the answer is no. This is a protection for the employee to decline going to that meeting.
Yeah, my concern, as Rep. Anderson said, it's a slippery slope, a lot of interpretation. The employee is going to now decide what meetings they do and don't go to because something might be discussed or something was discussed innocently enough at a previous meeting. You know, if it was if it was advertised as we're going to have a, you know, the company I used to lead, we had a Bible study once a week. Certainly it wasn't mandatory, you know. But as the chairman just said, you have a First Amendment right to get up and leave. And I suspect if an employer was dumb enough, which none of them are, to fire a good employee because they were overtly pushing religious or political views and the employee had a problem with it. But if that employer were then dumb enough to fire them, they would have a very strong legal case. They've already got the rights, as the chairman himself just articulated, thus my opening comment. This is an answer, a solution in search of a problem. I see no need for it, and obviously I'll be a no. Thanks, Chairman.
Thank you. Representative Fink.
So in the bill, there's a special carve-out for unions. Why would we be exempting unions? What's the point of that? If the purpose of the bill is to protect the employees for refusing to go to a meeting specifically to discuss religion or political inquiries or political talk, if they have a right to leave and not suffer consequences, why are we exempt in unions where we know? I've had family members work for the unions. We've had mail sent to us on behalf of the unions saying supporting the Democratic Party. We had apprentices having to participate in distribution of Democratic material walk in parades supporting Democratic candidates They required to do these kind of things Why is there an exemption? They should be protected as well, because we know a lot of the actual hardworking members of the union, at least in my district, happen to support Republican candidates, and when they're required by the union to support the Democratic outwardly, that's a problem. Why are we exempt in the unions? Thank you.
Sure, I can start. Thank you, Representative Fink. There are several common-sense carve-outs we have in this bill. This is one of them. We also have a carve-out for religions as well, religious organizations, where that speech is actually expected because you're working at a religious institution to have religious speech to be protected. So there are certain carve-outs, common-sense carve-outs in this bill that are as written that basically make sense because as you would – I guess you would agree that it wouldn't make sense to have this apply to a religious institution because that's exactly what they do. Same thing for a union to specifically have this for a union because talking about unionization, things like that. So, again, they're simple – these are common-sense carve-outs. It's not just unions. or religion as well, basically covering what the bill is covering. And Ryan's going to add on to that. And if you're referring to the part that was added today in the amendment in Section 9, that actually came at the request of the Office of Administration, and it's related to the – it has to be according to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement because existing collective bargaining agreements allow union access to employees that they represent for different purposes throughout the day at the workplace. Thank you.
Sure. Go ahead. Representative Fink?
So you're saying that the purpose of the bill is to protect the employees, right? And the carve-outs are, in your words, they're needed to protect those things. I understand the carve-out for the churches because their purpose is to promote religious ideals, right? Are you saying that the purpose of the union is to promote the Democratic Party?
That's not what he said.
Well, he didn't answer my question.
I think I did. I mean, again, these are common sense carve-outs. This bill is very clear. It talks about political and also religious as well. As a result, we have to have carve-outs because there are going to be organizations that obviously that is the entire purpose of their organization or a significant part of that organization. So for this bill, again, because this is a law, we have to have common sense carve-outs, and that is why this is written as it is.
My apologies, but I thought the purpose of the union was to make sure that the workers are getting a fair wage and support the workers, not necessarily support a political agenda. From your words, your comment back to me, churches are exempt from the religious – they're exempt. They're allowed to promote the religious ideals because that's within their purview, right? That's their job. So you're saying that the purpose of the union is to protect the Democratic Party. Like, they're exempt from that.
That's literally what they're saying.
That's not what he said.
He said collective bargaining. He said collective bargaining. They never said Democratic Party or Republican Party.
Because last I checked, I didn't think there was any, you know, exclusivity on who, what unions do with anything.
He said collective bargaining. I don't, we don't want to turn this conversation into something that was not said.
So is there consequences to the union that are pushing one party ideals than another? So the mail that I'm receiving in the mail that's requiring union members to work for a specific party, there be consequences for them?
This bill is very clear. It's very limited to protecting workers. This is what this bill is about. It's very clearly defined what this bill is and what is not. the avenue that you're discussing is far beyond the bounds of the purpose of this bill and the intent of this bill. And also, I may add how this bill is written.
Again, I don't understand the carve-out for the union. Point of clarification.
Sure.
There's three legs to this bill. There's the meeting, the person leaving, and then the punishment, right, or the discipline. Correct.
I'm confused as to – there seems to be an ideological obsession with unions and Democrats, but where's the – there's no discipline being employed. So I don't know where this question is leading. I'm so confused. So if you could explain – when you're talking about a carve-out for unions, do you mean people who work for a union, like if somebody worked for the AFL-CIO? Yeah. Or do you – are you talking about rank-and-file members of a union? Because I think there's some confusion on, because how could a union discipline when they're not the employer? There you go. Yeah.
Yeah, that's correct, Representative Marks.
And one more point of clarification, Mr. Chair, if I could. Sure.
Representative Haddock.
Thank you, Chairman. This bill clearly states meetings at work. It has nothing to do with the mail system. and you're getting mail at home. The average person in Pennsylvania and around this country gets that type of mail at home. This is not workplace. It has nothing to do with this bill. What is being described is outside the bounds of this bill. This bill includes communications, but, again, this is about workers being forced to sit and listen, to watch. is specifically protecting workers. That is the bounds of this bill. What you're describing is outside the bounds of this bill. It is for clarification.
Ryan, can you explain the discipline piece? Because I think that may be what's missing from this conversation.
Sure. So for Section 4, the prohibition is an employer or an agent representative or designee of an employer may not discharge, discipline, or penalize, threaten to discharge, discipline, or penalize, or take adverse employment action against an employee because, and then there's three different items, because the employee declines to attend or participate in an employer-sponsored meeting or declines to receive or listen to a communication from the employer or an agent or their representatives as a means of inducing the employee to attend or participate in a meeting or receive or listen to communications specified in paragraph one or because the employee, including a person acting on behalf of the employee, makes a good faith report orally or in writing of a violation or suspected violation of this section. Thank you.
Representative Razzle.
Just a quick question because this is broad, right, and I get the point that you're trying to get to. So let's say a company has a DEI training or meeting, and an employee says, this is political, I do not want to participate, are they also exempt from this, right, from punishment for not attending something that happens to be a sacred cow on the other side?
So my understanding, your assumption is that DEI is political?
Yes.
Okay.
That's one of the clarification.
But I think the – I defer to the executive director to delve in that specific scenario. But, again, this is protecting workers from having to sit or listen to political or religious speech. And that's fair.
And I'm just asking how broad that is. So that's why I picked that out specifically because that is something that obviously the chairman doesn't view as political. But everybody else on this panel on one side of the aisle does view as political. So who is determining what is political and what isn't political is what I'm getting at.
That would be the department and the courts.
Thank you.
Representative Anderson for the second time.
The point that this is not clear and is too broad, with all due respect to my colleague, is the last half hour we've been debating what is and what is not political. We have disagreement on this committee. Tariffs, are they political? DEI, is it political? And we can say, well, it's definitely not. Well, it's definitely not to one side and it definitely is to the other side. So transfer that then to the actual boardroom or the room where they're having the discussion. They're going to have the exact same disagreements in that room that we're having on this committee. So – and you say, well, the courts are going to decide. Well, my goodness, think how many employees are going to sue or bring a complaint from both sides, from the left and from the right. Because the people that are sitting in a room, they have religious beliefs and they have political beliefs, and a lot of those are 180 degrees different. So the clarification, the subjectivity of the bill is the main concern, not the purpose of the bill. Also, my second point is nobody announces, hey, we're going to have a political meeting. Come to the meeting. An employer doesn't say, hey, we're going to talk about religion today. That's going to be the topic of the meeting. Come to the meeting. The situations, the real reality of this is somebody is going to be doing a meeting on just whatever they have a meeting about the – what's going on in that factory or in that business. And somebody is going to bring something up to go to Representative Jones' point. Then they get up and they walk out. So now they miss the rest of the meeting that is nonpolitical and is nonreligious. And then they say maybe I won't come to the next meeting. This is far too subjective, as demonstrated by what we're debating right now across the board. So for that, this bill is a little messy and is way too subjective as to who's doing what. And for that, I think we can all agree or should agree that this is not ready for prime time. This is not going to vote yes on something that we can't even agree on the subject matter in the committee because the same thing is going to happen in the boardroom or the company meeting. Thank you.
Yeah, again, I think we're clearly missing the bill entirely because this is around discipline of an employee for not doing something. All these other scenarios have zero to do with the actual intent of the bill or is in the bill. We're creating these fantasies in our mind about the boogeyman And nothing in this bill suggests any of those things. It's totally got to do with the discipline of an employee for not doing something. So it has to have an action that I have yet to hear from anyone that's opposing the bill. You're creating another fantasy that does not exist just to have a talking point about a bill that you may not want to vote on.
Representative Riker.
Riker, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess to that point, because the bill is broader than just meetings, right? It's communications. Section 4, number one, kind of leads into that. So with communications in a hypothetical scenario if a CEO was sending an email about say tariffs or something along those lines and there was not an unsubscribe feature on that email would that open that employer up to civil liability? No.
It would not. It's an unwanted, unsubscribe, potentially politically charged thing, and the employee has no recourse to opt out of that.
So that would, in fact, be – that would not create any sort of civil liability for that employer?
No. No. I don't believe that's ever been – in the states where that is up, that's ever been an issue because it's not in the bounds of the bill. This is employees that are being forced to listen, watch, or being forced to read. You're not being forced to read an email that you receive. If you look at my inbox, I think you know that. Fair enough.
That's not how I work. Thanks.
Thank you.
Representative Mursky for the second time. Rep Conn, just a couple questions for you. In these scenarios that have been presented, the part that's been missing is the discipline. So, under this bill, would it be possible for an employer to have a conversation with the employee for walking out of the meeting, asking why they did it and perhaps discussing how we could resolve this in the future without discipline? be permitted under your bill?
I believe so.
Okay. So the employer can still question, you know, why did you leave? They can still, you know, seek understanding. So that's not prohibited. And all of the information that they missed, they can still receive that information, correct?
If they choose to walk out, they can have a meeting with the employee and still present that information to that employer or to the employee, correct? Yes, correct.
All right. And then the last question with this, this is only triggered if the meeting happens, the employee walks out, and then the employer subsequently disciplines the employee. If there is no discipline, all of these scenarios that were presented today are moot, correct?
Correct, yes.
All right, thank you.
Thank you. Chairman James.
Thank you. So thanks to everybody who asked questions or made comments. I'm going to be a no on this one.
I want to ask everybody else to do that, too. After all this, if you're sitting here and you have a comfortable, strong feeling you know what this bill does, you could be a yes. But I'm not sure what the bill does and doesn't do, and it's going to lead to myriad court cases. Courts are busy enough. So I encourage you to know. Thank you. Any other questions? Well, seeing none, well, again, always great to welcome the committee back to such a lively debate on a lot of hypotheticals. This is very on brand for this committee. So I would obviously advise folks to vote in affirmative. And I'll just quickly try to explain the bill again. It is simply a protection of saying that an employer cannot discipline you for attending or listening or participating in things that are unwork-related. Seems very straightforward to me. I don't know how we got this complicated. I guess we just miss each other. But I hope that we can try to get to the next bill a little quicker so we can make it to the floor on top. So with that, I'll ask Jonathan to call the roll.
Dawkins?
Yes.
Brennan.
Yes, by designation.
Donahue.
Yes, by designation.
Jerole.
Yes, by designation.
Goffner.
Yes, by designation.
Green.
Yes, by designation.
Haddock.
Yes.
Ingles.
Yes, by designation.
Kincaid.
Yes.
Kujuski.
Yes.
Mursky.
Yes.
O'Mara.
Yes, by designation.
Scott.
Yes, by designation.
Young.
Yes, by designation.
James.
No.
Anderson.
No.
Berger?
No by designation.
Bernstein?
Designation, no.
Cooper?
No.
Diorci?
No.
Fink?
No.
Gleim?
No.
Jones?
No.
Razzle?
No.
Reichard?
No.
Rossi?
No by designation.
The bill passes as amended. Thank you. House Bill 64 is favorably reported as amended. I would now like to call up House Bill 678, printers number 692, introduced by Representative McNeil. Ryan, please speak the bill.
House Bill 678, printer number 692, the Labor Broker Registration Act, requires labor brokers who operate in the state's construction industry to register with the Department of Labor and Industry in order to do business in the Commonwealth. The department would be required to recreate the application process as well as establish and maintain a public website that lists all registered labor brokers in the state. The bill also creates an investigation process and penalties for violations of the act.
Thank you. The question is, will the committee report the bill? I will be offered an amendment A-02500. Ryan, please explain the amendment.
Amendment A-02500 makes changes to the penalty section and requires the department to prepare educational materials.
Thank you. The question is, will the committee agree to the amendment? Are there any comments on amendment A-02500? I now recognize Chairman James.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the bill. I think it, excuse me, I support the amendment. and I think it improves the bill. Thank you.
Do I see any no votes on the amendment? Seeing none, the amendment adopted, A02500, will be adopted into the bill. Now we move on to the full bill. No, we have another amendment, so you want to talk about the amendment? So Chairman James has an amendment, A02689. John, do you want to explain the amendment?
Chairman James's amendment 2689 simply amends the definition of debarment to provide that to be considered a successor entity, a construction business must meet at least five of the nine criteria listed in that definition.
Thank you. As the question is, will the committee agree to the amendment? I now recognize Chairman James.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For now, I'm going to withdraw the amendment which I have offered, subject to further discussion and the likelihood of offering an amendment on the floor when it comes to the floor. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman. So now we move on to House Bill 678 as amended. Yeah, as amended. Is there any discussion on the bill? Representative Gleim.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your willingness to work with stakeholders and make changes to the bill. I think that the amendment makes the bill better. I'm actually very positive about it after so many years. I'm probably going to be a no here today, however, because I really want Chairman James's amendment as well. I think in practice it's very unlikely that many subcontractors are going to meet all six points. And so this is going to rope in many legitimate subcontractors into labor brokers. but I can say that with that amendment I think this is actually a very positive bill so thank you Mr. Chairman
Thank you, that's very encouraging words I'm glad to hear them any other member want to be recognized? Representative Riker
Thank you Mr. Chairman just a quick question on the six items there that would exclude a subcontractor from the requirements here. Number three, it talks about exclusively controlling the work of any subcontractor. You know, as is common on a lot of job sites, you know, you might have, say, you know, an electrician say to the guys hanging drywall, you know, can you punch a couple places for junction boxes or something like that. Would that negate the exclusively controlling the work of the subcontractor? Or would that put them in a situation where they would then no longer meet that definition and be subject to, as Representative Klein was saying, the definition of labor broker?
No, that's not exclusively in that particular scenario. But Ryan, do you want to explain this piece of the bill that he's referring to?
Sure. So in that section, what Chairman Dawkins was mentioning is that they have to be exclusively controlling the work of any subcontractor, including the authority to hire and fire and to direct the methods and means of construction work performed on the construction project. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other member? Chairman James.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in agreement with Representative Gleim. The amendment did improve the bill. The trend line is clearly up. We submitted a request to upwards of 50 different retailers and wholesalers in the public, and I think we got responses from maybe two or three. I'd like to get some more information in. and for now because of the issue of debarment and what will be a debarable point I'm going to be a no on the bill Thank you
Well I want to thank the members, I want to thank the chairman we are going to be working together to come up with an amendment for the floor so we can kind of get a a good bipartisan product that I believe we can get across the finish line. So with that, I'm going to urge members to support the bill to get it out of committee, and we're going to be working on the bill as we go through the process. So with that, Jonathan, please take the roll.
Dawkins.
Yes.
Brennan.
Yes, by designation.
Donahue.
Yes, by designation.
Jerome.
Yes, by designation.
Goffner.
Yes, by designation.
Green.
Yes, by designation.
Haddock.
Yes.
Ingalls?
Yes, by designation.
Kincaid?
Yes.
Kujuski?
Yes.
Mirsky?
Yes, by designation.
O'Mara?
Yes, by designation.
Scott?
Yes, by designation.
Young?
Yes, by designation.
James?
No.
Anderson?
No.
Berger?
No, by designation.
Bernstein?
Designation, no.
Cooper?
No.
Diorci?
No.
Fink?
No.
Gleim?
No.
Jones?
No.
Razzle?
No.
Reichard?
No.
Rossi.
No by designation.
The bill passes as amended. Thank you. House Bill 678 is favorably reported as amended and as CNO of the business, this meeting is now adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.