An Act to amend 106.015 (1) of the statutes; Relating to: required ratio of journeyworkers to apprentices in apprenticeship programs and contracts.
Summary
AB241 would change Wisconsin’s apprenticeship ratio law by allowing a higher apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio in apprenticeship programs and apprentice contracts. Under current law, the Department of Workforce Development may not approve or enforce a ratio requiring more than one journeyworker for each apprentice. This bill would amend that standard to allow one journeyworker to supervise up to two apprentices, expanding the permissible ratio statewide.
The bill also includes an applicability provision for apprenticeship contracts covered by collective bargaining agreements. If an existing collective bargaining agreement contains terms inconsistent with the bill, the new ratio would not apply until the agreement expires or is extended, modified, or renewed, whichever happens first. In practical terms, the bill would affect apprenticeship program administration, employer training practices, labor-management agreements, and DWD oversight of apprenticeship standards.
Impact
AB241 would amend section 106.015(1) of the Wisconsin statutes, limiting the Department of Workforce Development’s authority to set apprenticeship ratios and expressly permitting a 1:2 journeyworker-to-apprentice ratio instead of the current 1:1 maximum. The change would affect apprenticeship programs, apprentice contracts, employers, unions, and collective bargaining agreements that address training ratios. It would also create a delayed effective application for contracts governed by inconsistent labor agreements.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had meaningful legislative support, passing both chambers by majority vote: 54-40 in the Assembly and 18-15 in the Senate. At the same time, the final status indicates it failed to become law after the Governor’s objections, suggesting executive opposition despite legislative approval. The vote margins indicate support, but not overwhelming consensus, and the governor’s veto-related outcome signals that the proposal was politically contested.
Contention
The main point of contention is the appropriate supervision ratio in apprenticeship programs. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to expand training capacity and flexibility by allowing one journeyworker to oversee two apprentices, while opponents likely worried that a higher ratio could reduce supervision quality, training standards, or workplace safety. A second area of concern is the bill’s interaction with collective bargaining agreements, since the delayed applicability clause preserves existing labor contract terms until they expire or are changed, which may have been important to labor groups and employers negotiating apprenticeship conditions.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 106.015 (1) of the statutes; Relating to: required ratio of journeyworkers to apprentices in apprenticeship programs and contracts.