The offices of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, in Madison. The department administers the state unemployment insurance program. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A change to unemployment compensation that would penalize people who receive federal disability payments has made it into a draft bill to revise Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance law — despite vocal opposition from Democrats in the state Legislature.

For people who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) income, the change would sharply reduce their jobless pay if they lose work. For many, it could wipe out their unemployment compensation entirely, according to Victor Forberger, a veteran unemployment insurance lawyer.

The SSDI provision is part of the agreed-upon draft legislation that was approved Wednesday by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council.

The council includes an equal number of management and labor representatives and was established in 1932 to give labor and management an equal voice in shaping the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) program. The council’s members negotiate and draft changes to the state’s UI laws every two years.

On Wednesday Forberger called the council’s 2025 draft bill “a terrible deal for workers.”

Less than a week ago, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) walked back an earlier proposal to penalize SSDI recipients who apply for jobless pay. The return of a similar provision in the draft bill caught critics by surprise.

“I was pretty shocked when I heard about it this morning,” said state Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), a vocal critic of the earlier proposal. “I thought it was put to rest.”

The SSDI unemployment pay ban

Since 2013, under a law enacted in then-Gov. Scott Walker’s first term, people who receive SSDI income are automatically disqualified from collecting unemployment insurance — despite the fact that many SSDI recipients hold part-time jobs and would otherwise qualify for jobless pay if they get laid off.

In July 2024 a federal judge ruled that 2013 law violated two federal laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling came in a lawsuit that a team of lawyers including Forberger filed on behalf of SSDI recipients who were denied unemployment compensation when they were thrown out of work.

This summer, the judge, William Conley, ordered DWD to stop disqualifying unemployment compensation applications simply because an applicant also receives SSDI.

In August, Conley ordered the department to reconsider the applications of people denied UI because of the ban since 2015 and to award them the jobless pay they would have qualified for without the ban. Conley also ordered DWD to repay applicants who had originally received jobless pay, then had it clawed back after the department belatedly found that they were also SSDI recipients.

Also in August, the joint labor-management advisory committee reviewed a dozen proposed changes in state unemployment insurance law requested by DWD.

One of those proposals was to repeal the 2013 state ban on unemployment pay for people on SSDI. The memo noted the court’s ruling invalidating the ban.

But that proposal also called for offsetting an SSDI recipient’s weekly unemployment pay by the weekly value of the SSDI income. The memo acknowledged that the proposal would probably eliminate unemployment compensation for most SSDI recipients who applied.

“In 2024, the average SSDI payment in Wisconsin was $1,500 per month,” the DWD proposal memo stated. “The average weekly SSDI payment for UI purposes is calculated at $346.20 per week. This weekly amount will in many cases fully reduce the UI benefit a SSDI recipient can receive.”

The memo concluded, “In summary, most SSDI claimants will not be able to receive UI benefits. While some may be able to receive UI benefits, it is expected that the weekly UI payment would be small.”

Offset proposal walked back — then returns

The proposal sparked backlash from Forberger and Democratic lawmakers. On Sept. 18, DWD submitted an amended version of the proposal to the advisory council.

The revision removed the offset provision entirely and called for simply repealing the ban on jobless pay for SSDI recipients.

The department noted in its amendment memo that the process of paying past unemployment insurance applicants under the court order had begun, and that those payments were being made without a deduction for SSDI income.

“The Department is amending its proposal to repeal the SSDI disqualification provision and remove the offset provision,” the Sept. 18 memo stated. “This will align with the effect of the court’s order that is now allowing claimants who receive SSDI to be eligible for the full amount of their weekly benefit without a reduction for any SSDI received.”

At the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council’s meeting on Wednesday morning, the body approved a draft bill for updates to Wisconsin’s UI law on a unanimous vote.

The draft includes a repeal of the SSDI unemployment compensation ban. Despite DWD’s Sept. 18 memo, however, the draft includes language that claws back some of an SSDI recipient’s jobless pay.

“If a monthly social security disability insurance payment is issued to a claimant, the department shall reduce benefits otherwise payable to the claimant for a given week by one-half of the amount [of a] security disability insurance payment that is allocated for that week,” the draft bill states.

While the offset in the draft bill is half what the original DWD proposal called for, Forberger said Wednesday that even the 50% offset would likely mean no unemployment pay for many SSDI recipients.

Sinicki and state Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) introduced a bill of their own earlier this month to repeal the ban.

“Receiving SSDI should not prevent working Wisconsinites from receiving unemployment insurance if they’re laid off,” Dassler-Alfheim told the Wisconsin Examiner on Wednesday. “That’s why Rep. Sinicki and I have proposed legislation to remove that ban from state statute, and I’m really hoping that we can see it across the finish line and put this problem to rest once and for all.”

The draft bill is the product of provisions worked out by each caucus — management and labor — in separate closed sessions. The Wisconsin Examiner contacted two senior representatives in the labor caucus of the council for comment Wednesday on the process, but received no response.

“I’m looking forward to finding out how this language got in there,” Sinicki told the Wisconsin Examiner Wednesday afternoon.

“If that language is in there, it is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and you know the courts have already said that. I’ve already said that,” Sinicki said. “And now they’re just going to end up right back in court with this. It makes no sense to me.”

Sinicki has long championed the advisory councils for unemployment insurance as well as for workers comp for negotiating legislation that represents the interests of both labor and management. She’s often chided Republican lawmakers who have authored and passed bills affecting either of those systems without going through the councils.

This time, “I’m struggling with it — I’ll be honest — because it is the agreed-upon bill,” Sinicki said of the unemployment insurance draft. “But first of all, as a Democrat and as somebody who prides herself in the fact that we take care of our most needy, I can’t vote for this.”

Sinicki said the legislation after it’s introduced is subject to being amended like any other bill, and that she would expect an amendment removing the offset proposal.

By tradition, the bill that comes from the advisory council is introduced under the names of the committee chair and the minority party ranking member on the Assembly’s labor committee — which is Sinicki.

Unless the draft is changed, however, “I will not be putting my name on this bill,” she said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Unemployment benefits application (photo by Getty Images)

The state labor department has backed away from its controversial proposal to change state unemployment insurance law that critics say would have perpetuated discrimination against people with disabilities.

A newly amended proposal from the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) calls for repealing Wisconsin’s ban on jobless pay for people who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) income.

The proposal follows a federal court ruling that found the ban violates two federal laws protecting people with disabilities.

Until this week, however, DWD’s proposal to repeal the ban included an additional provision: While a person receiving SSDI payments would be eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job, disability income would “offset” — cancel out — some or all of the individual’s unemployment compensation.

The SSDI proposal was one of a dozen changes to the state’s unemployment insurance law that DWD submitted to the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council earlier this year. The council, a long-standing body with equal representation from business and labor, negotiates changes to the state’s unemployment insurance laws every two years.

On Thursday, DWD submitted an amended version of its SSDI proposal. The new version repeals the ban on jobless pay for SSDI recipients and omits the offset provision.

“This is wonderful news for everyone involved and for the state of Wisconsin in general, disabled or non-disabled,” said lawyer Victor Forberger.

Forberger has specialized in representing people whose unemployment insurance claims have been rejected. He was one of the lawyers who sued DWD in federal court in 2021 to overturn the state law banning jobless pay for SSDI recipients.

Jobless pay ban violates federal law

U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled in July 2024 that the jobless pay ban violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Even after that ruling, DWD continued to deny unemployment claims made by people on SSDI. This July 14, Conley ordered DWD to stop disqualifying SSDI recipients from unemployment compensation.

In August, the judge ordered DWD to pay jobless benefits to eligible applicants who were denied because they received SSDI payments between Sept. 7, 2015 — when the SSDI-unemployment ban law was last revised — and July 30, 2025. Conley also ordered DWD to pay back people who had collected jobless pay but then ordered to pay back the money because they were on SSDI.

The federal Social Security Administration program allows and encourages disability insurance recipients to work part-time if they are able to.

During the administration of Gov. Scott Walker, however, DWD asserted in a  proposal that disability payment recipients who applied for unemployment insurance were probably “double-dipping” and committing “fraud.” The ban on unemployment pay for SSDI recipients was enacted in 2013, during Walker’s first term, and revised in 2015 during his second term.

DWD proposes unemployment insurance changes

Earlier this year DWD drafted 12 proposed revisions to Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance law for the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council to consider.

The department’s SSDI proposal called for repealing the ban on jobless pay, but also called for offsetting an SSDI recipient’s unemployment compensation on the basis of the disability income.

When Forberger read the DWD proposal and saw the offset provision, he wrote about it on his blog about unemployment insurance policy and wrote to the labor caucus members of the advisory council urging them not to support it.

The offset provision was still part of DWD’s SSDI repeal recommendation when the department presented its proposals to the advisory council in August.

The offset provision surprised state Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) when it came to her attention. Sinicki has often scolded lawmakers when they introduce bills to change the unemployment compensation system without sending them through the joint labor-management council.

“I’ve always been a stickler for, you vote yes on the agreed-upon bill [from the advisory council] because it was a compromise between both parties,” Sinicki told the Wisconsin Examiner on Thursday. But when she learned of the offset provision, “I made it very clear that I would not vote for any bill that had that in there.”

Sinicki along with Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) have authored their own proposal to repeal the SSDI jobless pay ban after the court ordered DWD to stop enforcing it. Both said they opposed DWD’s offset proposal and that they were glad to see that the department scrapped it Thursday.

‘Discrimination. Full stop.’

“What’s happening right now is discrimination. Full stop,” Dassler-Alfheim said in a written statement to the Wisconsin Examiner. “That’s why the federal judge ruled against it, that’s why Representative Sinicki and I have proposed legislation to remove it from state statute, and I’m glad to see that DWD has put forth this amendment” removing the offset.

Three proposed budgets from Gov. Tony Evers included recommendations to end the SSDI jobless pay ban, but with an offset provision as well. Those largely went unnoticed at the time, and were removed along with hundreds of other Evers proposals by the Republican leaders of the Joint Finance Committee during budget deliberations.

It wasn’t clear Thursday what prompted DWD to remove the offset provision from its latest proposal. The department memo to the joint advisory council said that it was already complying with Conley’s order to process benefit claims for SSDI recipients and would do so for previously-denied claims without an offset.

Amending its proposed change in the law to remove the offset provision “will align with the effect of the court’s order that is now allowing claimants who receive SSDI to be eligible for the full amount of their weekly benefit without a reduction for any SSDI received,” the memo states.

Sinicki said that while she was outspoken about her opposition to the offset provision, she had not directly communicated that either to DWD or to members of the advisory council.

A spokesperson for Dassler-Alfheim said she also had not been in direct contact with DWD or the Evers administration about her opposition to the offset.

 

Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Assembly Republicans passed a handful of bills Thursday on an array of issues. Democrats argued the measures won’t solve the problems facing Wisconsinites and unveiled their own proposals. 

The Assembly floor session is the first since lawmakers broke for the summer after completing the state budget. The Senate does not plan to meet this month, and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told reporters during a press conference that it was a “shame” they wouldn’t. She said she has had conversations about meeting in October. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said Republicans’ agenda for Thursday was an example of “prioritizing culture wars” rather than “doing what’s right.” 

Democrats’ education bills

Senate and Assembly Democratic lawmakers proposed their own package of education bills ahead of the floor session that would increase general aid for public schools by $325 per pupil, provide transparency on voucher school costs and provide free school meals to students. 

“We would like to see our legislative Republican colleagues focus on the issues that are facing Wisconsinites — issues like cost of living, their public schools and their property taxes,” Neubauer said. “That’s why we’re bringing forward this package today, because we know from conversations with our constituents what they’re really concerned about.”

The Democrats’ education agenda  contrasts with the plan announced by Assembly Republicans earlier this week. Republican proposals include encouraging consolidation of schools, calling on Gov. Tony Evers to opt into a federal school choice program, banning drones over schools and improving math education.

One Democratic  bill would dedicate $325 in additional per pupil state aid to Wisconsin school districts. It would cost nearly $500 million for 2025-26 and nearly $700 million for 2026-27. 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) called it the “bare minimum” that school districts need and said it would help school districts avoid raising property taxes. 

“School districts will do better under this bill than current law,” Roys said. “We know every kid around the state deserves to go to a great school so that they can meet their potential, but to be clear, this bill is not everything that our kids need or deserve, not even close.” 

Wisconsin’s most recent state budget did not give school districts any increase in per pupil general aid, despite calls from education advocates, Gov. Tony Evers and other Democrats to provide additional funding.

Republican lawmakers said they would not increase state aid after  Evers used his partial veto power to extend a cap on the annual increase to limits on the revenue districts can raise from local taxpayer of $325 per pupil for the next 400 years. Without state funding, school districts only have the option of increasing property taxes to bring in the additional funds. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects that property taxes will increase by more than 7% on average over the next year.

Roys said the bill is a “test” to see if Republicans want to help keep property taxes stable, since providing no state aid to schools will drive those taxes up. She blamed Republicans for placing districts in a situation where they have to go to property taxpayers to keep up with costs. 

Roys also knocked a Republican bill that would encourage school districts to explore consolidation and sharing services. 

“They want to consolidate school districts. They want to close schools, and by the way, everything’s the governor’s fault. Give me a break,” Roys said. “They want to hold the line on property taxes? Prove it.” 

The bill also includes an additional $31 million to ensure no school districts receive less state aid in 2025-26 than they received in 2024-25. 

The Department of Public Instruction’s July 1 estimate found that 277 districts — or 65.8% — of school districts were going to receive less in general aid from the state in 2025. 

Another bill seeks to provide greater transparency on the costs of voucher schools to districts by requiring property tax bills to include information about the cost. The bill would expand on a push that public school advocates are making at a local level after the city of Green Bay was able to add the information. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said the bill would help inform residents who may be confused about where their tax dollars are going. 

“We can say, time and time again, that the state is underfunding our local public schools. That is true. What they also don’t understand, and there’s a really simple fix, is how much of that money is leaving their district to go to other voucher schools. In some cases, millions and tens of millions of dollars… It is a simple fix. It is very straightforward,” Andraca said.

Requiring in-person work for state employees 

AB 39 would require state employees to return to in-person work for at least 80% of their time — or four days a week for a full-time employee — starting this year. The bill passed 51-44 with all Democrats opposing it. 

The bill initially required state agency employees to be in person the whole week, but an amendment dropped the minimum to four days. 

Republican lawmakers have been calling for stricter limits on remote work for several years. The policies became normal for state employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Nedweski said she isn’t “anti-telework,” but said remote work needs to be managed and measured. She said agencies haven’t provided data to show it is working. During the Assembly Committee on Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency hearing on the bill, agency leaders said remote work policies have helped with recruitment and retention of employees.

“It’s time for state employees to return to the office and do the work that Wisconsin’s hard-working taxpayers are paying them to do to the best of their ability and in their most productive and efficient way,” Nedweski said. “We have a policy that allows for remote work agreements. We’re not saying the policy is ending, we’re saying, come back, have your performance evaluated and re-sign your remote work agreement.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona), the ranking member of the GOAT committee, pointed to the testimony they heard as he argued the bill wouldn’t help.

“A bill like this with a one-size-fits-all return to work policy will not make our state government better… Remote work policies were born from a crisis, and we all remember too well. They’ve  become a success for our state government. We now have state workers dispersed all across the state. We’ve achieved savings by consolidating physical workspace. We’ve stayed competitive with the private market by appealing to how employees want to work and then what they expect from their work environment.” 

Flag prohibition

AB 58 would prohibit flags, other than the United States flag, the state of Wisconsin flag and a few others on a list of exceptions, from being flown outside state and local buildings including the Wisconsin State Capitol. The bill passed 50-44, along party lines. 

Rep. Jerry O’Connor, the author of the bill, argued that flags are part of the reason for increasing divisiveness, and even political violence. Wisconsin leaders condemned political violence during the session after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday.

“It’s not the role of the government to pick the winners and losers on partisan and activist issues,” O’Connor said. 

Some of the exceptions would include local government flags, those commemorating veterans, prisoners of war or missing in action, those recognizing a foreign nation for special purposes and a flag of a unit of firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency medical technicians. 

He said these exceptions are “simply recognizing those flags that are efficiently recognized by all levels of government.”

“We should have a shared outlook as to what we do as elected officials in this building here to promote unity and not division… I think we all could agree that those are the flags that represent all of us,” O’Connor said. 

Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) spoke specifically about pride flags, which are a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, when explaining his support of the legislation. 

“You’re asking every Wisconsinite to sanction what that means,” Wichgers said in reference to the Progress Pride flag. The chevron portions of the flag include black and brown stripes to represent people of color who identify with the LGBTQ+ community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS. The light blue, pink and white stripes in the chevron represent transgender people.

“I can guarantee you when you ask the people that are in favor, they’re not going to know what that chevron means, so we’re endorsing, sanctioning something that is being flown above our flag that is probably divisive,” Wichgers said. 

Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said, however, that she views the bill as being divisive and as a violation of the First Amendment. 

“I think as a body we should be promoting inclusiveness. It’s not just the more morally right thing to do. It also strengthens our communities, promotes mutual respect, and actually leads to more civic engagement,” Sinicki said. “These symbolic acts do matter. They matter to me, and they matter to the majority of people across Wisconsin.” 

Prohibit health services funding for immigrants without legal status

AB 308, coauthored by Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan), passed 50-44 along party lines. The bill would prohibit state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the United States.

Dallman said at a press conference that the bill is meant to stop Wisconsin from expanding its Medicaid to cover immigrants without legal status. Wisconsin already doesn’t allow this. 

“This is going to take a step forward to say that we are going to again keep these funds available for our citizens who are paying in all these dollars,” Dallman said. 

Advocates expressed concerns to the Examiner earlier this week that the bill would lead to health service providers having to check everyone’s citizenship status before providing care.

Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) said the bill is “the kind of thing that makes people hate politics.”

“We don’t provide health care to undocumented immigrants. The reason we’re voting on this today is so that the majority party can go out and tell their voters that Democrats failed to stop giving health insurance to undocumented people, but we can’t stop something that isn’t happening. Why waste time and taxpayer money this way?” Stroud said. “If you don’t have affordable health care, they don’t want you to hold them accountable. Instead, they want you to blame someone else.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

LeVar Wilson, a Milwaukee glazer, describes how a project labor agreement that included requirements for local hiring made it possible for him to learn his trade and build a career. A bill to repeal a state ban on project labor agreements is part of a "Build a Stronger Wisconsin" package that Democratic lawmakers proposed Thursday. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Democrats in the state Legislature began circulating draft legislation Thursday that they said would strengthen the state’s economy by supporting workers and undoing policies that undercut union-represented employees.

The package includes four bills: restoring Wisconsin’s prevailing wage law, repealing a ban on project labor agreements, repealing the state’s “right to work” law, and strengthening laws against wrongly classifying employees as independent contractors.

“We know that these are popular policies that the people of Wisconsin need to be able to thrive in our state,” said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) at a press conference in the Assembly chamber Thursday morning. “We  have all 60 members of the Assembly Democrats and the Senate Democrats signed onto these bills.”

A crowd of union members and supporters occupied the Assembly, packed in rows where the body’s leaders usually sit as well as bunched throughout the seats that lawmakers typically use during floor sessions.

One draft bill would undo Wisconsin’s “right-to-work” law enacted during former Gov. Scott Walker’s second term. The law bars employers and unions from requiring in their labor contracts that all union-represented employees pay union dues or fees to cover the union’s operational expenses.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the law “allows private sector workers to benefit from union protections without paying their share of union dues.” Spreitzer recalled he was in his first Assembly term when the measure was enacted in 2015 and spoke twice against it during an all-night floor session.

“Under federal law, unions are required to represent all employees in a workplace, but right-to-work laws like Wisconsin’s allow non-dues paying employees to receive the benefits of belonging to a union — such as bargain contracts for higher wages and union representation in employment disputes —without having to pay union dues,” Spreitzer said.

“That is not fair. It is well past time to return to the requirement that every union represented worker pays their dues for that privilege in Wisconsin,” he added.

Nurse Colin Gillis, a member of SEIU Wisconsin, called the law’s name “a misnomer.” Union members deride such laws as “right-to-work for less” because they tend to weaken wage gains, he said.

Right-to-work laws were first enacted in the segregated South after World War II. “Right-to-work laws were designed to divide and conquer and prevent us from joining together and increase living standards for working families from all races and backgrounds,” Gillis said. “Repealing ‘right to work for less’ will give me and my union siblings back the freedom to organize.”

A second bill would repeal another Walker-era law, enacted in 2017, that bars state and local governments from requiring contractors on public works projects to sign a project labor agreement with relevant unions. It also forbids government bids that require the bidder to have a union contract.

“Repealing the ban on project labor agreements, or PLAs, gives power to local and state governments to utilize a tool that would streamline the building process for public construction projects,” said Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson).

LeVar Wilson, a journeyman glazer represented by the Painters Union in Milwaukee, said he got his start as an apprentice 25 years ago when the Milwaukee baseball stadium, then known as Miller Park, was being built. The stadium project labor agreement guaranteed a percentage of jobs would go to Milwaukee County residents.

“I was one of those workers hired under this provision,” Wilson said. “It led me to a sustainable career that’s allowed me to raise a family of four without the struggle of poverty that I went through when I was a child.”

A third bill would increase enforcement and penalties for businesses that misclassify workers as independent contractors.

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said that when employers misclassify workers, they dodge state and federal payroll taxes, evade minimum wage laws and overtime payment requirements, and don’t pay into the worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance programs.

“By avoiding these costs, dishonest employers often successfully undercut their competitors with very low bids,” Sinicki said. “In this way, misclassification harms the law-abiding employers and their employees and also the taxpayers who have to pick up the slack.”

The draft bill would increase the penalties for lawbreakers and expand outreach both to contractors and the public about misclassification.

The legislation would “level the playing field for business owners like us, who play by the rules,” said Larry Statz, a second-generation union painting contractor with 30 employees who said that he’s seen more contractors misclassify employees in recent years.

“We refuse to break the law or shortchange our workers. But it’s getting harder to compete with dishonest companies who cut corners,” Statz said. “State laws on misclassification do not have enough teeth in them, and these cheating companies too often avoid being caught.”

The fourth bill would reinstate Wisconsin’s prevailing wage law, which set a standard for what workers on state and local government projects are paid. The prevailing wage law was repealed in the state budget Walker signed in 2017.

State Sen. Bob Wirch (D-Somers) said Republican lawmakers who voted to repeal the law “promised it would save the taxpayers money. Well, the opposite has happened.”

A study published in 2020 by the Midwest Economic Policy Institute found that  in the years that followed the repeal, construction workers’ wages fell by about $2,600 a year and highway construction costs increased.

At the time the report was published, a co-author, economist Kevin Duncan, said that the findings “underscore the longstanding academic consensus” that doing away with prevailing wage requirements leads to a lower-skilled, lower-wage workforce and doesn’t save money.

“Instead, it creates new inefficiencies in the form of workforce turnover, quality, cost overruns and safety problems,” Duncan said in a news release announcing the report. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said she has sought to persuade GOP Senate Majority Leader Devin Le Mahieu (R-Oostburg) to pursue bipartisan lawmaking.

“I do not know if the Senate Republicans have caucused on any of these measures, but I’d encourage them to do so,” Hesselbein said.

Neubauer said the Assembly Democrats would continue advocating for the measures, but also tacitly acknowledged that they might not advance until after the 2026 election — when Democratic leaders are hoping to flip one or both chambers.

“We will continue pushing for them as long as it takes,” Neubauer said of the bills. “And if that’s next session, so be it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill that passed both the Assembly and the Senate Wednesday would automatically classify ride-share and certain delivery drivers as independent contractors. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Legislation that would declare that drivers for app-based ride-share and delivery businesses are independent contractors will go to Gov. Tony Evers after clearing both houses of the Legislature Wednesday.

The legislation also authorizes the affected companies to offer drivers benefit plans without classifying them as employees.

After two previous attempts to pass the bill, in the Legislature’s 2021-22 and 2023-24 sessions, the Senate and Assembly votes Wednesday — mostly along party lines — marked the first time the measure will get to the governor’s desk.

The bill — AB 269 — applies to drivers for delivery and transportation businesses such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash who are hired by customers using online apps or similar technology.

It defines those drivers as independent contractors who are not subject to laws guaranteeing minimum wage, unemployment compensation and workers compensation.

Update: The bill passed the Assembly on a vote of 56-36, but as of Friday, the Assembly’s official journal of the session reported that three of four Assembly Democrats who were recorded as voting “yes” for the bill asked that their votes be registered as “no,” and their requests were granted, resulting in a new tally of 53-39. One Democrat supported the bill. 

WisPolitics.com reported the changed votes on Friday. WisPolitics.com also reported that according to the office of Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, Assembly chief clerk’s office and the Legislative Technical Services Bureau “conducted a thorough testing” of the Assembly’s electronic voting system and found no problems.

In the Senate, the bill passed 16-15, with no Democratic support and one Republican, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting in opposition.

As of Wednesday the Wisconsin Ethics Commission had no public reports on money spent lobbying for or against the legislation. But since early this year DoorDash has been running digital ads on WisPolitics.com and elsewhere promoting the legislation’s “portable benefits” provision.

DoorDash issued a statement Wednesday lauding the bill’s passage. “Dashers and customers in Wisconsin have sent hundreds of letters to the governor, urging him to sign the bill into law,” the company stated.

If Evers signs the measure, Wisconsin would be the first state in the country to enact such legislation. DoorDash has pilot benefit programs without legislation in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Georgia, the company said.

While the bill authorizes the companies to offer the benefit plans, it does not require them to do so. It sets the standards of coverage for such plans if they are offered. It also allows the businesses to establish deferred compensation retirement plans for their drivers.

“This bill will provide meaningful, affordable benefit opportunities for these independent contractors,” said Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Green Lake) at an Assembly press conference before Wednesday’s floor session. “They’ll be able to solidify that they get to choose when and where they want to work, the freedom that they have to be able to earn benefits through the work that they provide for these different companies, and be able to really set themselves up for a future of success by having things such as health insurance.”

A new independent contractor standard

The legislation lists four practices that would exclude a ride-share or delivery company from the independent contractor protections: If it requires drivers to be logged into the service on certain dates, certain times or for a minimum number of hours; if it terminates a driver’s contract for not accepting a specific service request; if it bars drivers from working with other such businesses; and if it bars drivers from working in any other occupation or business.

A company would have to flunk all four of those provisions to be disqualified.

In both the Senate and the Assembly, critics said the bill would serve the contracting companies, not their drivers.

“We don’t need to create a new category of workers with fewer protections, which is what this bill does,” said Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) on the Senate floor. “The sad realization is that all of the so-called benefits talked about in this bill may never come to fruition for any gig driver. And yet the bill makes mandatory the loss of employee status for every single app-based driver.”

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), said drivers testified in favor of the legislation that “they don’t want to be employees.” Bradley is the lead author of the Senate companion legislation. 

“If you watch any of the hearings, they’ll tell you, ‘We love the flexibility of being an independent contractor.’ They chose to be independent contractors because of the flexibility.”

Under state law and regulations, the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) uses a nine-part test to determine if workers are employees rather than independent contractors, said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly debate.

“The big problem with this bill, though, is that it actually allows the executives of these companies to dictate their own test to fit their own needs,” Sinicki said.

‘Difficult way to pay the bills’

“Driving for ride-sharing services like Lyft or Uber is a grueling, difficult way to pay the bills,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who said he’s a ride-share driver.

He said the industry’s claims that a driver collects $25 or $30 an hour are based on the travel time alone.

“So in an hour, if I take two people on rides which cost them $7 each and I get about $3.50 from each of those, Lyft might report that I got $30 an hour because they don’t count all the minutes between the rides. But I actually gross $7 that hour,” Clancy said.

The bill allows a company to contribute up to 4% of a driver’s earnings to the proposed benefits account. He said Uber drivers have an average weekly revenue of $513, so 4% “would come out to just $267 a quarter” — too little to cover a health insurance premium.  

The bill aims to keep drivers from being classified as employees because “it’s far easier to exploit an independent contractor than it is an employee,” he said.

Clancy said drivers across the U.S. have been “trying to get recognized as the employees they are, and to try to get access to basic benefits and workplace protections and access to unemployment insurance, just like the vast majority of employees in Wisconsin.”

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee), a co-sponsor of the bill was the only Assembly Democrat to support, although three other Democrats were initially recorded as voting “yes” before being granted a request to change their vote to “no.”

“I heard countless testimonies from drivers who wanted the flexibility of being independent contractors,” Ortiz-Velez said, adding that she has received “a ton of emails, a ton of support” for the bill this year as well as in the last two-year session.

“This bill offers portable benefits that right now don’t exist,” Ortiz-Velez said. “It won’t exist if we don’t pass this bill.”

Dallman, the bill’s lead Assembly author, said on the Assembly floor that critics of the bill can simply choose not to work for the companies it covers.

“This is for the independent contractor and the freedom that they have to get ahead in life by working a couple extra jobs, a couple extra trips on a weekend to make a little bit of extra cash,” Dallman said. “While at the same time, voluntarily partnering with one of these companies . . .  to pay for their benefits, to pay for their retirement. Again, the opportunity for workers to make choices on their own to get ahead in life.”

This report was updated Friday, 6/20/2025, to update the Assembly vote on SB 269 after the Assembly journal reported on a request by three Democrats to change how their vote had been recorded.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE