Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Apprenticeship Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate heats up over bill to exempt pre‑apprentices from prevailing wage on public works
Summary
Senate Bill 460 would exempt pre‑apprentices (including Job Corps participants) from prevailing‑wage requirements on public works. Supporters say the change removes a barrier to training placements; unions and building trades oppose the bill, saying it creates a loophole that could be exploited and undermine apprenticeships and safety.
A lengthy public hearing and debate on Senate Bill 460 highlighted deep divisions between workforce development advocates and unions over whether pre‑apprentices should be exempt from prevailing‑wage requirements on public works projects.
Senate Bill 460, sponsored by Senator Weber with Senator Anderson and Representative Jovida listed as co‑sponsors, would exempt workers who participate in pre‑apprenticeship programs from prevailing‑wage laws on public works procurements that the contracting agency advertises or enters into on or after the bill’s effective date (90 days following adjournment sine die). The bill was described to the committee as intended to remove an anomaly that requires Job Corps participants — who are not registered apprentices — to be paid prevailing wages, sometimes at higher rates than registered apprentices.
Sponsor Senator Suzanne Weber said Job Corps programs provide accessible, free training for students aged 16 to 24 and often include short, hands‑on placements that resemble internships. She said the bill is a ‘‘simple fix’’ that would increase placement opportunities by ensuring pre‑apprentices are not priced out of on‑the‑job training in public projects.
Proponents included Representative Jaffee and local business and workforce development leaders. David Reed, executive director of the Astoria‑Warrenton Area Chamber of Commerce, said pre‑apprenticeships are critical for rural workforce development and that prevailing‑wage rules currently make it more expensive for employers to engage young trainees.
Opponents were led by building trades unions. Robert Camarillo, executive secretary of the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, said exempting pre‑apprentices from prevailing wage would allow contractors to classify workers as pre‑apprentices to avoid prevailing wage obligations, creating a pool of underpaid, untrained workers and posing safety risks on construction sites. Jeff McGilvray of UA Local 290 and other union witnesses reiterated concerns that the bill would undercut registered apprentices’ ability to accumulate on‑the‑job hours and wage progression.
Several union witnesses urged alternative approaches such as funding direct stipends, expanding registered pre‑apprenticeship pathways that lead directly to registered apprenticeship, or increasing support for training programs rather than creating an exemption.
Witnesses representing unions — the Ironworkers, the electrical workers, SEIU Local 503 (care providers referenced broader workforce concerns) and the Oregon AFL‑CIO — consistently opposed the exemption. Supporters argued that pre‑apprentices typically train in classroom settings or short placements and that the bill would not eliminate prevailing wages for full apprentices and journey‑level workers.
The committee closed the public hearing and carried the bill and its work session over to Thursday, April 3, to allow time for amendment drafting and further review.
