In late June 2025, a group of Republican senators in the Michigan Legislature introduced a sweeping bill package designed to roll back the 2023 changes that ended Michigan’s status as a Right to Work state and reintroduced prevailing‑wage mandates for public and energy projects. The centerpiece of these proposals is Senate Bill 436, sponsored by Senator Thomas Albert, which seeks to reinstate Right to Work protections ensuring employees have the freedom to decide whether to join a union. This core bill is bolstered by companion measures targeting both public‑sector unionization rights and prevailing‑wage requirements on public utility and renewable energy projects. Their collective goal is to reshape Michigan’s labor landscape by increasing individual choice and scaling back regulations perceived as burdens on business activity. Those needing help navigating this evolving policy landscape would benefit from consulting an experienced employment law attorney in Ann Arbor.
Please note this blog post should be used for learning and illustrative purposes. It is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney with expertise in this area. If you have questions about a specific legal issue, we always recommend that you consult an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case.
Michigan’s transformation from a Right to Work state to one requiring union membership or dues in certain workplaces happened in early 2023. Over a decade ago, in 2012, Republicans passed a Right to Work law for both public and private sectors, but Democrats reversed that law after gaining legislative majorities and with Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s support. Since then, the state has experienced increased union density in both public and private employment, with businesses facing higher labor costs and less flexibility in contract negotiations. Advocates of SB 436 argue that restoring Right to Work will make Michigan a more compelling destination for investment and job creation, helping to revitalize its post‑pandemic economy. For companies or workers affected by these changes, an employment attorney in Ann Arbor can help interpret legal obligations and rights.
Supporters of this legislative push believe that restoring Right to Work reforms could spark a resurgence of private sector growth. They point to historical data showing that Michigan experienced notable economic gains during its earlier Right to Work period, including job creation and household income growth. They caution that without these reforms, Michigan may deter future business development, ultimately damaging its competitive position among Midwestern states. Senator Albert and other proponents emphasize that employees should have autonomy in their labor choices, criticizing mandatory dues as a form of political coercion. Individuals who believe they’re being compelled unfairly in workplace situations may want to consult an employment discrimination attorney in Ann Arbor to evaluate their legal protections.
In addition to SB 436, the legislative package includes four other bills targeting union rules and prevailing wage mandates. Senate Bill 437, introduced by Senator Roger Hauck, would codify Right‑to‑Work protections for public‑sector workers, although a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Janus v. AFSCME) already limited the collection of dues from non‑consenting public employees. Senate Bill 438, from Senator John Damoose, aims to repeal the general prevailing‑wage statute reinstated in 2023. Senate Bill 439, authored by Senator Michael Webber, would remove prevailing‑wage rules specific to public utility projects. Finally, Senate Bill440, by Senator Joseph Bellino, would repeal prevailing‑wage mandates on alternative energy projects such as wind and solar installations. As legislation continues to evolve, engaging a knowledgeable employment litigation attorney in Ann Arbor can be critical for navigating the potential impact on employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements.
Proponents of eliminating prevailing‑wage rules argue that these mandates artificially inflate project costs and burden taxpayers. By requiring contractors to match union-scale wages, critics argue that the state reduces competition and discourages efficiency in bidding for public works. Senator Albert and others in the coalition believe that eliminating these rules, along with restoring Right to Work, will lead to more efficient government spending, lower infrastructure costs, and greater incentives for developers to invest in Michigan. In such an environment, employers may benefit from the guidance of a skilled employment law attorney Ann Arbor firms trust to ensure compliance while protecting their business interests.
On the other side of the issue, prevailing‑wage supporters argue that these standards are vital for maintaining fair labor conditions and ensuring high‑quality craftsmanship in state-funded projects. When Michigan reinstated prevailing‑wage laws in 2024 through Senate Bill 571 (now Public Act 110 of 2024), it extended wage protections to include private energy facility construction projects over two megawatts and introduced rigorous contractor registration and reporting requirements. Proponents say these standards protect workers, attract skilled labor, and help ensure timely, reliable project delivery. They often cite national studies that suggest prevalent wage laws do not necessarily result in higher final costs due to improved labor productivity and reduced rework rates.
Critics, however, counter with economic research showing that prevailing‑wage laws can increase total project costs significantly. Estimates range from 8.5 to 14.3 percent additional expense when adjusted for quality, particularly in road and infrastructure development. These added costs, they argue, are ultimately paid by taxpayers and may hinder public project completion or reduce overall investment in needed facilities. Furthermore, critics contend that such laws disproportionately benefit unionized firms and add compliance barriers that smaller, non-union contractors struggle to overcome. These issues can also prompt private disputes or litigation, making an experienced employment litigation attorney Ann Arbor employers trust an invaluable ally.
A key part of Michigan’s current prevailing‑wage regime is the administrative oversight that accompanies contractor participation. All contractors working on state, utility, or energy-related public projects are required to register annually with the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, pay a registration fee, and submit detailed certified payroll records within ten days of each pay period. Contractors who fail to comply may be subject to steep fines, license suspensions, and exclusion from future state contract eligibility. These requirements are aimed at enhancing transparency and preventing labor abuse, but they also introduce additional burdens on contractors, especially those not equipped with advanced payroll systems or compliance teams.
Despite the ambitious scope of the proposed reforms, their path to enactment faces substantial political obstacles. At present, Republicans do not hold the majority in the Michigan Senate, and all five bills have been referred to the Senate Government Operations Committee. With Democrats maintaining control and having recently supported the repeal of Right‑to‑Work and the reinstatement of prevailing‑wage laws, the current legislative leadership is unlikely to advance these bills during this term. Nevertheless, their introduction signals a continuing ideological and policy debate that is likely to shape future election cycles and legislative agendas.
If these measures eventually pass, the changes would be sweeping. Private‑sector unions would lose the ability to mandate dues from non-members, likely weakening their financial and organizing capacity. Public utility and alternative energy contractors would no longer be bound by state-mandated wage floors, enabling broader bidding participation, but also potentially reducing wage standards and labor protections. While supporters frame this as a return to labor freedom and market-based efficiency, opponents view it as an erosion of worker rights and public standards. In any employment-related dispute that may arise from these changes, the counsel of an employment attorney Ann Arbor professionals rely on becomes critical.
Michigan’s labor law debate is part of a much broader national conversation. Right‑to‑Work laws remain divisive across the country, with some states defending them as tools for economic growth and worker choice, while others see them as vehicles for undermining collective bargaining. Similarly, prevailing‑wage policies evoke conflicting arguments about quality, cost, fairness, and government responsibility. Michigan’s 2025 proposals capture the tension between these competing priorities, making the state once again a central battleground for labor and economic policy. Any workers who believe their rights are being violated due to these policies should consider consulting an employment discrimination attorney Ann Arbor employees can trust.
Some political observers argue that the tension between promoting economic development and protecting workers’ rights may never fully resolve. Questions persist: Will repealing prevailing‑wage laws actually lead to lower costs without sacrificing job quality or safety? Can Right to Work laws attract long‑term investment, or do they simply drive down wages? These debates transcend policy and reflect deeply held values about fairness, opportunity, and the balance between government intervention and free enterprise.
As this legislative package moves through the political process, stakeholders from all sectors, business leaders, labor unions, public officials, and ordinary citizens—will have a vested interest in the outcome. Testimonies at public hearings, media coverage, and constituent feedback will all shape the debate. Governor Whitmer, who has previously supported pro‑labor policies, is expected to oppose any attempt to reverse prevailing‑wage or Right to Work repeals. Unless there is a dramatic shift in political power, the proposed bills may not move beyond committee this session, but they are likely to resurface in the next if electoral dynamics change.
Ultimately, this debate is about the vision Michigan has for its economic future. Whether the state chooses to embrace deregulation and cost flexibility or continue bolstering labor protections and wage standards will send a clear signal to workers, employers, and other states watching closely. For now, Senate Bills 436 through 440 represent not just a set of legislative proposals, but a referendum on the role of labor law in shaping Michigan’s competitive edge and workforce well-being.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Sources
- Sen. Albert’s announcement on Right to Work and repealing prevailing-wage mandates mlcmi.com+1AP News+1Senator Thomas A. Albert+1mlcmi.com+1
- Michigan Legislative Consultants overview of the bill package mlcmi.com
- Official Michigan Legislature documentation for Senate Bill 436 Michigan Legislature