Michigan Prevailing Wages on State Projects Repeal (2016)

Michigan Prevailing Wages on State Projects Repeal
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Labor and unions
Status Not on the ballot
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

Voting on Labor and Unions
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local labor and unions Local project labor agreements Local pensions

The Prevailing Wages on State Projects Repeal was not put on the November 8, 2016 ballot in Michigan as an indirect initiated state statute.

The measure would have repealed the 1965 law that requires prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects.

Text of measure

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

An initiation of legislation to repeal 1965 PA 166, entitled “An act to require prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects; to establish the requirements and responsibilities of contracting agents and bidders; and to prescribe penalties,” (MCL 408.551 to 408.558); and to provide an appropriation for purposes incidental thereto. If not enacted by the Michigan State Legislature in accordance with the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the proposed legislation is to be voted on at the General Election, November 8, 2016.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

“

An initiation of legislation to repeal 1965 PA 166, entitled “An act to require prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects; to establish the requirements and responsibilities of contracting agents and bidders; and to prescribe penalties,” (MCL 408.551 to 408.558); and to provide an appropriation for purposes incidental thereto. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: Enacting section 1. (1) 1965 PA 166, MCL 408.551 to 408.558, is repealed. (2) For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, $75,000.00 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to implement and to disseminate information regarding the repeal of 1965 PA 166, MCL 408.551 to 408.558. The appropriation made and the expenditures authorized to be made by the department of licensing and regulatory affairs under this enacting section are subject to the management and budget act,1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1101 to 18.1594. Enacting section 2. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with the State Constitution of 1963, the United States Constitution, or federal law, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the State Constitution of 1963, the United States Constitution, and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperative shall be severable from the remaining portions of this act. TEXT OF LAW TO BE REPEALED: Public Act 166 of 1965 408.551 Definitions. Sec. 1. As used in this act: (a) 'Construction mechanic' means a skilled or unskilled mechanic, laborer, worker, helper, assistant, or apprentice working on a state project but shall not include executive, administrative, professional, office, or custodial employees. (b) 'State project' means new construction, alteration, repair, installation, painting, decorating, completion, demolition, conditioning, reconditioning, or improvement of public buildings, schools, works, bridges, highways, or roads authorized by a contracting agent. (c) 'Contracting agent' means any officer, school board, board or commission of the state, or a state institution supported in whole or in part by state funds, authorized to enter into a contract for a state project or to perform a state project by the direct employment of labor. (d) 'Commissioner' means the department of labor. (e) 'Locality' means the county, city, village, township, or school district in which the physical work on a state project is to be performed. 408.552 Contracts for state projects; minimum wage provisions, exceptions. Sec. 2. Every contract executed between a contracting agent and a successful bidder as contractor and entered into pursuant to advertisement and invitation to bid for a state project which requires or involves the employment of construction mechanics, other than those subject to the jurisdiction of the state civil service commission, and which is sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state shall contain an express term that the rates of wages and fringe benefits to be paid to each class of mechanics by the bidder and all of his subcontractors, shall be not less than the wage and fringe benefit rates prevailing in the locality in which the work is to be performed. Contracts on state projects which contain provisions requiring the payment of prevailing wages as determined by the United States secretary of labor pursuant to the federal Davis-Bacon act (United States code, title 40, section 276a et seq) or which contain minimum wage schedules which are the same as prevailing wages in the locality as determined by collective bargaining agreements or understandings between bona fide organizations of construction mechanics and their employers are exempt from the provisions of this act. 408.553 Prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates; schedule as part of specifications and bid form. Sec. 3. A contracting agent, before advertising for bids on a state project, shall have the commissioner determine the prevailing rates of wages and fringe benefits for all classes of construction mechanics called for in the contract. A schedule of these rates shall be made a part of the specifications for the work to be performed and shall be printed on the bidding forms where the work is to be done by contract. If a contract is not awarded or construction undertaken within 90 days of the date of the commissioner’s determination of prevailing rates of wages and fringe benefits, the commissioner shall make a redetermination before the contract is awarded. 408.554 Prevailing wages and fringe benefit rates; establishment; public hearings. Sec. 4. The commissioner shall establish prevailing wages and fringe benefits at the same rate that prevails on projects of a similar character in the locality under collective agreements or understandings between bona fide organizations of construction mechanics and their employers. Such agreements and understandings, to meet the requirements of this section, shall not be controlled in any way by either an employee or employer organization. If the prevailing rates of wages and fringe benefits cannot reasonably and fairly be applied in any locality because no such agreements or understandings exist, the commissioner shall determine the rates and fringe benefits for the same or most similar employment in the nearest and most similar neighboring locality in which such agreements or understandings do exist. The commissioner may hold public hearings in the locality in which the work is to be performed to determine the prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates. All prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates determined under this section shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of labor and made available to the public. 408.555 Prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates; posting by contractors. Sec. 5. Every contractor and subcontractor shall keep posted on the construction site, in a conspicuous place, a copy of all prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates prescribed in a contract and shall keep an accurate record showing the name and occupation of and the actual wages and benefits paid to each construction mechanic employed by him in connection with said contract. This record shall be available for reasonable inspection by the contracting agent or the commissioner. 408.556 Prevailing wages and fringe benefits; failure to pay, termination of contract; contractor’s liability and sureties. Sec. 6. The contracting agent, by written notice to the contractor and the sureties of the contractor known to the contracting agent, may terminate the contractor’s right to proceed with that part of the contract, for which less than the prevailing rates of wages and fringe benefits have been or will be paid, and may proceed to complete the contract by separate agreement with another contractor or otherwise, and the original contractor and his sureties shall be liable to the contracting agent for any excess costs occasioned thereby. 408.557 Violation of act; penalty. Sec. 7. Any person, firm or corporation or combination thereof, including the officers of any contracting agent, violating the provisions of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. 408.558 Inapplicability of act. Sec. 8. The provisions of this act shall not apply to contracts entered into or the bids made before the effective date of this act.

”

Support

The campaign leading support for the initiative was Protecting Michigan Taxpayers.

Arguments in favor

Chris Fisher, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan and vice president of the Protecting Michigan Taxpayers campaign, made the following argument:

“

This is about advancing citizen legislation and bringing forth solid policy that protects taxpayers and protects Michigan jobs. For decades, we've been held back by one of the worst policies in the country. This will guarantee that the issue is taken up in 2015.

”

Opposition

The campaign leading the fight against the initiative was Protect Michigan Jobs.

Opponents

• Gov. Rick Snyder (R)

Arguments against

Gov. Rick Snyder (R) made the following argument:

“

I have serious problems with prevailing wage (repeal), and I think I would much rather work on skilled trades jobs in our state by partnering with the very people that would be adversely affected.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

Supporters filed the petition with the secretary of state on October 16, 2014, and it was approved by the Board of State Canvassers on October 20, 2014.

The group had a 180-day window to collect 252,523 valid signatures to make the ballot. Chris Fisher, vice president of the Protecting Michigan Taxpayers' campaign, said the group had hired an outside firm to collect the signatures. Ballot committee Protect Michigan Jobs filed a challenge against the initiative on October 26, 2015, claiming that more than 40 percent of signatures submitted are duplicates or invalid for other reasons. The campaign withdrew the petition in late October 2015 and started a new petition drive with a new petition management company.

On May 27, 2016, Protecting Michigan Taxpayers announced that they would not be submitting signatures for the June 1, 2016, deadline. The group's spokesperson, Chris Fisher, stated that not going forward with the issue was a "strategic decision."

Lawsuit

Protecting Michigan Taxpayers filed a lawsuit against the company who ran the campaign's petition drive, Silver Bullet LLC. The lawsuit stated that Silver Bullet "conducted the worst petition drive in the history of the State of Michigan" and was the reason why the petition had to be withdrawn. Protecting Michigan Taxpayers has started another petition drive to get the measure on the ballot. Protecting Michigan Taxpayers reached a settlement agreement with Silver Bullet LLC on November 21, 2016.

State profile

Demographic data for Michigan
	Michigan	U.S.
Total population:	9,917,715	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	56,539	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	79%	73.6%
Black/African American:	14%	12.6%
Asian:	2.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.5%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.6%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	4.7%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.6%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	26.9%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,576	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	20%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Michigan. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Michigan

Michigan voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, 12 are located in Michigan, accounting for 5.83 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Michigan had 11 Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 6.08 and 4.00 of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Michigan coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Michigan
• United States congressional delegations from Michigan
• Public policy in Michigan
• Endorsers in Michigan
• Michigan fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• Michigan 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Michigan Legislature
• List of Michigan ballot measures

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox