Alabama Jobs Act; Secretary of Commerce prohibited from awarding economic tax incentives to companies that do not practice certain employment protections for workers
HB352 would amend Alabama law governing economic incentives under the Alabama Jobs Act by adding new labor-related conditions that a company must meet in order for the Secretary of Commerce to approve a project as a qualifying project. Beginning January 1, 2027, a company seeking a job act incentive would have to certify that, for as long as it receives the incentive, it does not require mandatory overtime, does not use rotating shifts, does not require weekend work, provides at least 40 hours of paid emergency leave annually, guarantees a 40-hour work week unless an unforeseeable health, safety, or welfare issue arises, does not require off-the-clock work, and does not count travel time to a bathroom or breakroom against break time.
The bill is framed as an economic development measure, but it effectively ties state tax incentives to workplace scheduling and break-time protections. It would add Section 40-18-372.1 to the Code of Alabama 1975 and limit the Secretary of Commerce’s ability to designate projects as qualifying projects under Section 40-18-372 unless the employer makes the required certification. The act would take effect on October 1, 2026, with the incentive restrictions applying to projects beginning January 1, 2027.
HB352 would change the Alabama Jobs Act by conditioning eligibility for certain economic tax incentives on compliance with specified employment practices. The practical effect would be to exclude companies that use mandatory overtime, rotating shifts, weekend work, unpaid off-the-clock labor, or break-time policies that count travel to bathrooms or breakrooms against employee breaks, and to require paid emergency leave and a guaranteed 40-hour work week except in limited emergency circumstances. The bill would directly affect employers seeking state economic incentives, the Secretary of Commerce’s project-approval authority, and the administration of qualifying projects under Section 40-18-372.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record shows no formal legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and pending status in the House of Origin. The measure appears to be drafted from a worker-protection perspective, using tax incentives as leverage to encourage more predictable schedules and stronger break and leave policies. Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no documented support or opposition from legislators, stakeholders, or the public in the available materials.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s labor mandates and the use of tax incentives to enforce them. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting workers from mandatory overtime, unstable schedules, unpaid work, and restrictive break practices, while critics may argue that the requirements are too rigid for employers, especially in industries that rely on shift work, weekend operations, or fluctuating staffing needs. The most notable policy tension is whether the state should condition economic development incentives on detailed workplace rules that go beyond traditional tax policy and into employment regulation.