Michigan Lawmakers Pushed for Offshoring Restrictions
Proposed legislation would require companies to notify the state before moving jobs overseas.
Updated on Sept. 24, 2026 in Legislative Policy
Live Poll
Should companies that receive taxpayer-funded incentives be restricted from moving jobs overseas?
Michigan lawmakers and union members are calling for a vote on new bills aimed at curbing the offshoring of call center jobs. The legislation would mandate that companies report relocation plans and allow the state to claw back taxpayer-funded incentives.
Why it matters
The proposal seeks to hold corporations accountable for job losses after they have accepted state financial support. Supporters aim to ensure that companies maintain a long-term commitment to the Michigan workforce.
The proposed legislation includes House Bills 6069 and 6070, which were introduced in June 2026. These measures build upon the existing WARN Act, which has required 60 days of advance notice for facility closures since its passage in 1988.
The players
James DeSana
He is a Michigan State Representative who co-introduced the offshoring legislation.
Amos O'Neal
He is a Michigan State Representative who serves as a sponsor of the proposed bills.
Gretchen Whitmer
She is the Governor of Michigan who previously vetoed prior versions of call center protection legislation.
Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity
This is the state agency that would receive notification of company offshoring plans under the new bills.
The details
Companies would be required to notify the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity regarding plans to move jobs out of the country. If enacted, the state would gain the authority to recoup loans, grants, or tax incentives from firms that offshore their operations.
Timeline
1988: The federal WARN Act was passed to mandate closure notifications.
June 2026: State Reps. James DeSana and Amos O'Neal introduced the new legislation.
September 24, 2026: Lawmakers and union members held a press conference to advocate for the bills.
Political Context
Opponents and some business groups argue that mandatory reporting and clawback provisions could create an unfavorable environment for companies operating in the state. Skeptics frequently raise concerns that such regulations may conflict with broader economic competitiveness goals favored by the governor's office.
The passage of these bills would create new transparency requirements for large employers in the state. Residents working in affected sectors could see changes in job security protections or corporate recruitment practices tied to state incentive programs.
The takeaway
Advocates have maintained a ten-year push for these protections to address concerns about the loss of local employment. Residents should watch for upcoming committee hearings as the primary indicator of whether this legislation gains momentum in the current session.
Further reading
For additional context, visit the Legislative Policy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Advance.
Live Poll
Should companies that receive taxpayer-funded incentives be restricted from moving jobs overseas?
