Michigan House Democrats have rammed through a measure to limit how many apprentices a master plumber can supervise simultaneously.

However, critics say the regulation could have unintended consequences ranging from hurting the state’s ability to attract businesses to increasing costs of construction projects.

While there is no current limit to how many apprentices a single plumber can train simultaneously, Senate Bill 740, which the Senate voted 56-53 along party lines to pass, would bar a journey or master plumber from training more than two plumbers at the same time.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

“Imposing these restrictions on plumbers during devastating labor shortages would be a significant oversight on the part of state government,” state Rep. Doug Wozniak, R-Shelby Township, said in an announcement. “We should be exploring policy that encourages more people to get into the trades, not financially disincentivizing businesses already operating on tight budgets from hiring young professionals.”

Wozniak added: “If these restrictions on plumbers are put into effect, the cost to pay for the increased labor and training requirements will have to come from somewhere. The heightened cost imposed on businesses will almost definitely be passed down onto consumers who will then be strapped with even more increased costs that they simply cannot afford.”

Running afoul of the measure, should it be signed into law, is potentially costly. Violators would face a $5,000 fine for a first offense, a $10,000 fine for a second offense, and a minimum 90-day license suspension for a third violation.

A similar measure, Senate Bill 895, mandates that an electrical journeyman or master electrician cannot train more than one registered apprentice at a time. Currently, there must be at least one electrical journeyman or master electrician for every three registered apprentice electricians.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

It includes similar punitive provisions and is currently pending before the Senate.

In a letter to state Rep. Jim Haadsma, D-Battle Creek, chair of the House Labor Committee, state Sen. Darrin Camilleri, D-Trenton, said the “lack of an apprentice ratio has also a negative impact on job sites – where we’ve heard horror stories of contractors employing dozens of apprentices to complete work without adequate supervision from an experienced journeyman.”

In a June email to the Senate Labor Committee, Melissa Fish, director of public policy and strategic initiatives for Southwest Michigan First, said SB 740 and SB 895 would reduce training capacity, delay skills development, decrease the attraction of new talent, hinder business growth and increase existing plumbers’ and electricians’ workloads.

“We believe the presence of a skilled workforce is the single most important factor in determining the location of high-value companies,” Fish wrote.

“Apprenticeships are crucial for developing the skills and knowledge needed to become proficient plumbers and electricians,” Fish added. “By restricting apprentices’ exposure to real-world scenarios, their learning and skill development process may be delayed. This could prolong the time it takes for them to become fully qualified plumbers and electricians, further exacerbating the workforce shortage.”

Additionally, members of the Grand Rapids Chamber voiced their opposition to the measures, saying they could hurt the state’s ability to attract businesses.

“As you are aware, the success of our state relies on the ability to grow as a community through construction and redevelopment,” they wrote. “To accomplish this, we must promote the building trades. Putting in place significant restrictions on these trade businesses will impede growth and deter new businesses from locating and growing in Michigan. It will also negatively impact our mission to address the housing shortage.”

The Chamber continued: “Finally, the limitations put on both the electrical and plumbing trades do not have a mutually exclusive impact on those specific industries,” they added. “In the construction process, many other tradespeople are at the mercy of each other in completing their responsibilities before another trade can begin their work. These delays can compound the length of delay for a project and can cost the funder of the projects significantly, both in time and money.”

How They Voted

Senate Bill 740: Roll Call No. 348

Yeas—56

Aiyash; Andrews; Arbit; Brabec; Breen; Brixie; Byrnes; Carter, B.; Carter, T.; Churches; Coffia; Conlin; Dievendorf; Edwards; Farhat; Fitzgerald; Glanville; Grant; Haadsma; Herzberg; Hill; Hood; Hope; Hoskins; Koleszar; Liberati; MacDonell; Martus; McFall; McKinney; Mentzer; Miller; Morgan; Morse; Neeley; O’Neal; Paiz; Pohutsky; Price; Puri; Rheingans; Rogers; Scott; Shannon; Skaggs; Snyder; Steckloff; Tate; Tsernoglou; Wegela; Weiss; Whitsett; Wilson; Witwer; Xiong; Young

Nays—53

Alexander; Aragonaj; Beeler; BeGole; Beson; Bezotte; Bierlein; Bollin; Borton; Bruck; Carra; Cavitt; DeBoer; DeBoyer; DeSana; Filler; Fink; Fox; Friske; Greene, J.; Hall; Harris; Hoadley; Johnsen; Kuhn; Kunse; Lightner; Maddock; Markkanen; Martin; Meerman; Mueller; Neyer; Outman; Paquette; Posthumus; Prestin; Rigas; Roth; Schmaltz; Schriver; Schuette; Slagh; Smit; St. Germaine; Steele; Thompson; Tisdel; VanderWall; VanWoerkom; Wendzel; Wozniak; Zorn