Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Pool Act Repeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances repeal of Florida Labor Pool Act amid sharp debate over worker protections
Summary
HB 6033, seeking to repeal the Florida Labor Pool Act, was reported favorably after competing testimony. Supporters called the statute duplicative of federal and other state laws; opponents — worker advocates and labor groups — warned the repeal would eliminate numerous protections for day laborers.
Tallahassee — The Civil Justice Subcommittee voted to report favorably HB 6033, a bill by Representative Abbott that would repeal the Florida Labor Pool Act.
Representative Abbott said the Labor Pool Act duplicates protections already provided by federal and state laws and that the industry is extensively regulated: “repealing that would not, remove any protections for employees,” he said. Abbott told members the law’s protections largely overlap with federal rules such as OSHA and state wage laws.
Opponents said repeal would remove unique, state‑level safeguards for day laborers. Jonathan Weber, policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, warned the act currently prohibits labor pools from charging workers for required safety equipment, limits transportation charges to $1.50 each way and restricts fees to access wages; he said federal law does not fill those gaps and that repeal would expose vulnerable workers to deductions and other costs. Karen Woodall of the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy said the staff analysis indicates the act contains 23 protections and that repeal would cause 16 to be lost or significantly reduced.
Labor advocates and organizations including Florida for All and the Florida AFL‑CIO urged the committee to pause and study enforcement mechanisms before repeal. Dr. Rich Templin of the Florida AFL‑CIO urged postponement to allow advocates and lawmakers to identify precise protections that would be lost and possible narrower fixes to address litigation incentives.
Representatives who supported the bill and representatives from firms in the temporary labor industry argued the statute was enacted in 1995 to address specific problems but that enforcement and regulatory contexts have changed; Kelly Mallette of Pacesetter Personnel Services said private‑sector incentives and other laws now provide protections and that the act’s private cause of action can be counterproductive.
After more than an hour of testimony and debate, the committee clerk announced HB 6033 reported favorably by a roll call of 11 yeas and 3 nays. The sponsor and opponents said they expect continued negotiations about whether to amend the bill to preserve key worker protections or to craft narrower reforms.
