Texas House Bill HB2249

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/8/09
• Voted on by House: 4/24/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/6/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/14/09
• Governor Action: 5/27/09
• Enrolled: 5/18/09
• Passed: 5/27/09

Caption

Relating to the regulation of staff leasing services.

Impact

The bill's implications on state laws are significant as it mandates stricter financial requirements and oversight on businesses providing staff leasing services. By instituting guidelines for working capital and licensing renewals based on financial viability, the bill intends to foster a more stable operating environment within the industry. Additionally, the introduction of electronic filing for compliance purposes can streamline processes for both the companies and regulatory bodies, potentially reducing administrative burdens. However, it also indicates a shift towards increased oversight of staff leasing entities in Texas, aligning them more closely with financial accountability standards.

Summary

House Bill 2249 focuses on the regulation of staff leasing services in Texas, proposing amendments to the Labor Code that emphasize the importance of working capital requirements, licensing regulations, and the role of assurance organizations. The bill introduces definitions related to the assurance organization and establishes that firms must demonstrate positive working capital varying by the number of employees they have, specifying figures of $50,000, $75,000, and $100,000 based on employee count. This framework aims to provide a structured method for the licensing of staff leasing service companies and ensure financial solvency, thereby protecting the interests of both employees and clients.

Contention

Debate surrounding HB 2249 may center on the balance between regulation and operational flexibility for staff leasing services. Proponents argue that the regulations are necessary to safeguard clients and employees against the risks of insolvency and mismanagement among staffing firms. Conversely, opponents could express concerns that these stringent requirements may limit the ability of smaller firms to operate effectively, thus reducing competition and driving up costs in the staffing market. The operational definitions and requirements set forth in the bill could lead to further discussions on the necessity and impact of third-party assurance organizations, which could either enhance compliance reliability or be viewed as an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.