Michigan House Bill HB5007

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/18/25
• Refer: 9/18/25

Caption

Employment security: administration; determination of whether services performed by an individual are employment; modify. Amends sec. 42 of of 1936 (Ex Sess) PA 1 (MCL 421.42).

Impact

If enacted, HB 5007 would have significant implications for individuals working in Michigan but providing services outside the state, or vice versa. For example, employees whose work includes a substantial portion done outside Michigan could find their eligibility for unemployment compensation affected if their services do not qualify under the amended provisions. The changes may particularly impact industries with a mobile workforce, including transportation and aviation, by imposing requirements that either localize duties in Michigan or establish a base of operations within the state.

Summary

House Bill 5007 seeks to amend the Michigan Employment Security Act, specifically targeting section 42 which defines employment in terms of services rendered across borders and the requirements for those services to qualify for unemployment benefits. This legislative change aims to clarify the terms under which services performed by individuals can be considered as employment, thus influencing eligibility for unemployment compensation. The amendment proposes a more detailed understanding of what constitutes local and interstate employment, particularly in the context of workers performing their duties across state lines or internationally, such as in the case of American vessels.

Contention

The discourse surrounding HB 5007 may highlight multiple points of contention among legislators and stakeholders. Proponents are likely to argue that this bill streamlines administrative processes and clarifies ambiguities about employment status, which could lead to more efficient handling of unemployment claims. Conversely, opponents may raise concerns about the potential narrowing of definitions could limit access to benefits for workers, particularly those in non-traditional employment situations or gig economy roles. Such concerns are particularly pronounced regarding federal compliance and reciprocity with unemployment programs in other states.