Script-free record · Release 2026-07-28.3
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Core facts and links below come from the same immutable public release as the enhanced record page.
vote
Recorded floor vote
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Vote date
- 2024-06-26
- Chamber
- senate
- Result
- passed
- Yeas
- 20
- Nays
- 18
- Excused
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Related measure
- measure-6469
- Related sitting
- sitting-710
Official totals and named choices remain separate evidence. A named choice supports that vote only and does not establish continuous presence.
Inspect all published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- Senators Albert and Victory, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 740. Senator Albert moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Albert’s statement, in which Senator Victory concurred, is as follows: This bill as originally introduced dealt with both electricians and plumbers, now it deals only with the plumbers. This bill would for the first time establish a jobsite ratio for plumbers. Not more than two apprentices could be on the job for every one journey or master plumber on the job site. The state has a ratio in place for electricians, and there is a separate bill that was discharged to the floor that deals with that. No need has been demonstrated for this legislation. There is no data to show implementing a ratio for plumbers would improve safety, just as there is no data to show there was any change in safety when the state altered its ratio for electricians several years ago. I am all for safety, and there should be jobsite discussions about the work that apprentices and more experienced workers are doing to ensure it is safe. There should be discussions about how many workers are needed and what skill levels are needed all the time. But there isn’t any evidence that implementing this ratio will improve safety. What we do know, however, is that Michigan is in great need of skilled trades workers. This legislation would make it harder for there to become more skilled trades workers in the state of Michigan. Implementing or tightening ratios would lead to fewer apprenticeships having opportunities. If a company is required to have more experienced workers on the payroll, it’s going to result in fewer new employees at the apprenticeship level. That would especially be true for small businesses that simply don’t have the same flexibility to adapting their staffing in the way that larger companies might. Some of these small business owners have reached out to my office to share their concerns. One said this legislation “eliminates opportunities for the next generation of construction trades workers.” Another said that limiting the number of apprentices they can employ will stifle their small company’s growth, eliminate a lot of potential jobs, and increase costs to customers. Yes, increase costs to customers. That is because labor costs would be higher. That would make the cost of a new home, or possibly in some cases home repair, more expensive. This change is bad for workers, employers, and customers. I urge a “no” vote. The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 829, entitled A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 14b of chapter XVII (MCL 777.14b), as added by 2002 PA 29. The question being on the passage of the bill, The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 0
- Measure id
- measure-6469
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 18
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Sitting id
- sitting-710
- Vote date
- 2024-06-26
- Vote id
- vote-7807
- Vote number
- 289
- Yeas
- 20
Follow the evidence
Cite this record
Michigan Legislative Activity and Evidence Dataset, release 2026-07-28.3, “The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:,” /votes/vote-7807.
/api/v1/votes/vote-7807