SB179 amends the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act to strengthen penalties for intentional underpayment of prevailing wages on public works projects. Under current law, a contractor or firm found to have intentionally failed to pay prevailing wages is barred from receiving public contracts for three years. This bill replaces that single debarment period with a tiered system based on the amount of wages unlawfully withheld: three years for underpayments under $1 million, five years for underpayments between $1 million and $10 million, and ten years for underpayments over $10 million.
The bill also changes the Secretary of Labor and Industry’s role from discretionary to mandatory in one respect: if the secretary determines intentional failure to pay prevailing wages, the secretary must notify public bodies of the offending person or firm and must request the Attorney General to pursue recovery of penalties owed to the Commonwealth. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
SB179 would amend Section 11(e) of the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, directly affecting contractors, subcontractors, and firms involved in public works contracts. It would expand and lengthen debarment consequences for intentional prevailing wage violations, creating a graduated penalty structure tied to the dollar amount of underpayment and making referral for penalty recovery mandatory. Public bodies would be required to avoid awarding contracts to debarred entities for the applicable period, and the Department of Labor and Industry would have a more prescriptive enforcement role.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as an enforcement and worker-protection bill rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Its sponsors are all Democrats, which suggests support from lawmakers favoring stronger wage enforcement and accountability in public contracting. No opposing arguments or recorded vote history are provided, so the available context indicates a generally pro-enforcement posture without documented public disagreement in the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the severity and duration of debarment, especially the new five- and ten-year bans for larger violations. Contractors and industry groups could view the bill as increasing compliance risk and imposing harsh consequences for wage disputes, while labor advocates would likely support the tougher penalties as necessary to deter intentional underpayment. Another possible issue is the mandatory referral to the Attorney General, which removes discretion from the secretary and could be seen as increasing enforcement pressure.
Further providing for duty of contractor; providing for registration of contractors and subcontractors, for registration fees, for proof of registration and for duties of contractors, subcontractors and the department; and further providing for remedies and penalties.
Further providing for definitions; providing for duty of department to report; further providing for civil remedies and penalties, for liquidated damages and for criminal penalties; providing for employer liability; and establishing the Wage Enforcement Fund.
Further providing for definitions; providing for duty of department to report and for investigations; further providing for civil remedies and penalties, for liquidated damages and for criminal penalties; providing for employer liability; and establishing the Wage Enforcement Fund.
Further providing for definitions; providing for notice and regulations; further providing for unfair labor practices and for representatives and elections; providing for initial collective bargaining agreement; further providing for prevention of unfair labor practices and for penalties; and imposing penalties.