House Bill 6070 would create the “anti-offshoring accountability act” and apply to employers operating call centers with 50 or more employees that receive a state grant, loan, or tax incentive under a written agreement entered into on or after the bill’s effective date. The bill requires covered employers to give the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity at least 30 days’ notice before relocating a call center, or a qualifying portion of a call center, from Michigan to a foreign country. It also covers closures or operational changes where the employer intends to contract with a foreign provider for the same services.
The bill establishes a state registry of employers that must provide notice, to be compiled every six months and maintained for at least five years or until any required repayment is completed. The registry would include the employer’s name, the date of relocation or closure, the number of jobs affected, and the destination city and country. Access to the registry would be limited to authorized state agencies for determining eligibility for future grants, loans, or tax incentives. The act would take effect 90 days after enactment.
HB 6070 would add new notice, reporting, and repayment conditions to certain state economic development agreements involving call center employers. It would not broadly regulate all offshoring, but it would create enforceable consequences for covered employers that relocate call center work abroad after receiving state support, including potential repayment of grants, loans, or tax incentives if the underlying agreement contains a clawback provision. It also gives county prosecutors and the attorney general authority to pursue repayment actions, and it creates a state-managed registry that could affect future eligibility for public assistance.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a worker- and accountability-focused measure aimed at discouraging companies from using state incentives while moving call center jobs overseas. The overall tone of the proposal is protective of Michigan jobs and public investment, with an emphasis on transparency and recouping state funds when employers offshore operations. No formal vote history or hearing record is provided here to show support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the state should condition economic incentives on keeping call center operations in Michigan and whether requiring repayment for offshoring is an appropriate use of state leverage. Supporters would likely emphasize job retention, accountability for public subsidies, and transparency about relocations. Opponents may argue that the bill could discourage business investment, limit corporate flexibility, or create compliance burdens for employers that receive state assistance. The bill’s focus on call centers and foreign relocation also suggests potential debate over how broadly the restrictions should apply and whether the 30% call-volume threshold and notice requirements are workable.