WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 494

relative to the state fire code, fire incident reporting and investigations, and the duties of the state fire marshal.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bill Gannon and 3 co-sponsors

Repeals a prohibition, letting state/local governments require labor standards in contracts, permits, licensing, or procurement, enabling local worker rules on bargaining topics.

Signed by the Governor on 05/28/2026; Chapter 104; Effective 07/27/2026
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 494

SB 494 — “Repealing prohibition on state and local government labor regulation” (FE)

Status: Introduced Nov 22, 2024 — Fiscal estimate(s) received
Short title from bill metadata: Repealing prohibition on state and local government labor regulation

Main purpose / intent

SB 494 would remove an existing statutory prohibition that prevents the State and local governments from enacting or enforcing laws, ordinances, policies, regulations, or contract/permit/licensing conditions that require a person to accept any provision that is a subject of collective bargaining under state labor law or the federal National Labor Relations Act. In short, the bill would restore to state and local governments the authority to adopt labor‑related requirements (including via contracts, procurement, permits, zoning, licensing, etc.) that are otherwise related to collective‑bargaining subjects.

Key provisions

  • Repeals the statutory bar that currently forbids the State and local governments from imposing any condition that would require a person (e.g., a contractor, vendor, employer) to accept provisions that are the subject of collective bargaining.
  • By repeal, allows governmental units to adopt ordinances, policies, regulations, or contractual/permit/licensing conditions involving labor standards or requirements even if those subjects overlap with bargaining topics under labor law.
  • No express substantive labor rules are created by the bill; it restores permissive authority to adopt such rules at the state or local level.

Who would be affected

  • State agencies, counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, technical college districts, and other local government units (any public entity that may set contract, permitting, or licensing conditions).
  • Private parties doing business with government (contractors, vendors, developers) who could become subject to locally or state‑imposed labor requirements tied to public contracting or approvals.
  • Labor organizations and employees (potentially increases venues where labor‑related terms can be required).
  • Agencies involved in enforcement or procurement (may face new administrative duties depending on local adoption).

Fiscal and procedural aspects

  • Multiple agency fiscal notes provided with the bill indicate: no expected statewide fiscal effect but an indeterminate local impact. Several state agencies (e.g., Department of Administration, Public Service Commission, technical colleges, DPI, district attorneys) reported either no anticipated fiscal effect or inability to estimate impacts.
  • Fiscal uncertainty stems from the permissive nature of the repeal: costs (or savings) would depend on whether and how local governments choose to adopt new labor‑related rules (e.g., requiring labor peace agreements, prevailing wages, project labor or local hiring conditions).
  • Status notes: introduced Nov 22, 2024; fiscal estimates have been prepared by multiple agencies. Further committee hearings or amendments could follow as local governments and state agencies complete reviews.

Potential policy implications (practical effects)

  • Restores local/state flexibility to use procurement, licensing, and land‑use tools to advance labor policy objectives (for example, requiring contractors on public projects to sign labor‑peace or project labor agreements, or imposing wage/benefit or apprenticeship requirements for public contracts).
  • Could lead to a patchwork of local requirements across jurisdictions, increasing compliance complexity for contractors who work in multiple areas.
  • May prompt legal and policy debates over interplay with collective bargaining law and federal preemption, and could generate litigation in contested cases.

Prepared objectively from fiscal notes and agency analyses accompanying SB 494. If you want, I can:
- Pull specific fiscal‑note language from named agencies (DA, PSC, DPI, WTCS), or
- Draft a short explainer on examples of local labor tools that jurisdictions might use if the repeal becomes law.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.