Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB465

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/26/25
• Refer: 9/26/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 103.81 (2m); to amend 102.60 (1m) (c), 103.25 (1), 103.27 (2), 103.28 (2), 103.70 (1), 103.70 (2) (a), 103.70 (2) (b) (intro.), 103.71 (1), 103.74 (intro.), 103.80 (2), 103.81 (1) and 103.81 (2); to create 103.70 (2) (c) of the statutes; Relating to: permits authorizing the employment of minors. (FE)

Impact

The implications of AB 465 are significant, as it encompasses a broader age range requiring permits and aims to streamline the process by which minors can work legally. Advocates for the bill argue that it enhances the protection of minors by ensuring that all workers under the age of 18 are covered by child labor laws, potentially reducing exploitation in workplaces. The extension of oversight is intended to ensure safer working conditions and compliance with labor laws. However, opponents may argue that the increased permit requirements could limit employment opportunities for young individuals seeking work, especially in informal or minor home jobs where a permit may not have traditionally been required.

Summary

Assembly Bill 465 seeks to amend existing statutes regarding the employment of minors in Wisconsin. The central aim of the bill is to raise the age for which a permit is required for employment, extending it to all minors under the age of 18. Previously, only minors under 16 needed such a permit. This means that all individuals below 18 will need to secure a written permit authorizing their employment, regardless of the job's nature. Additionally, the bill clarifies that minors can engage in work around the home without a permit under specific conditions, promoting minor employment in low-risk environments like assisting elderly or disabled individuals with tasks such as snow shoveling and lawn care.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding AB 465 include concerns regarding its impact on youth employment, particularly in casual or informal job settings. Critics might express that extending the requirement for a permit could deter employers, particularly smaller local businesses and nonprofit organizations, from hiring minors due to additional bureaucratic requirements. Additionally, the amendment designed to protect minors engaged in street trades may be viewed as overly restrictive, imposing limitations where the local community feels capable of managing youth employment safely.