AUGUSTA — Of three bills that arose from concern for workers’ job security after the Georgia-Pacific takeover of Great Northern Nekoosa, only one bill remains alive in the Legislature, and that bill’s fate is far from certain.

All three bills were sponsored by Senate President Charles P. Pray, D-Millinocket, who stressed that his efforts were not targeted specifically to protecting jobs at the Great Northern mills in Millinocket and East Millinocket.

Pray said the takeover made him “aware of how exposed Maine workers were in these situations when you have a takeover. We have `golden parachutes’ for executives, but limited protection for workers.”

Awaiting action in the Senate is “An Act to Promote Economic Development,” which would tie state financial assistance to businesses to a requirement that those businesses give hiring preference to existing employees, including those previously laid off.

State financial help to business includes loans, loan guarantees, tax-increment financing and tax credits. The bill does not require companies to hire existing employees, or previously employed workers, if other applicants are more qualified.

The bill got an 8-4 “ought-to-pass” recommendation from the Labor Committee, ensuring floor debate.

Rep. Edward McHenry, D-Madawaska, House chairman of the Labor Committee, said Monday, “Whenever the state is going to help Maine industry, there ought to be some guarantee that Maine jobs will be protected.”

The job-protection bill has co-sponsorship from House Speaker John L. Martin, D-Eagle Lake, and Rep. Herbert Clark, D-Millinocket.

The Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry is vigorously lobbying against it, grouping the bill with about half a dozen measures it says are the “most destructive” before the Legislature from a business standpoint.

Another job-protection bill sponsored by Pray has won a unanimous thumbs-down recommendation from the Labor Committee and is effectively dead for this session.

This bill, aired at a public hearing only a week ago, would have prevented companies with 100 or more employees from laying off workers after a corporate takeover if the layoffs were done to pay for takeover costs, or to pay the costs of warding off a takeover.

The bill’s restrictions on layoffs would have been in place for five years after a takeover or attempted takeover.

Pray told the labor panel he wasn’t satisfied by Georgia-Pacific promises that it wouldn’t lay off Maine workers after the merger.

Pray and Ed Gorham of the Maine AFL-CIO said the bill could have many positive applications beyond the G-P takeover of Great Northern. But business lobbyists said it would be too restrictive, discourage beneficial or necessary takeovers, and force businesses to justify layoffs in a way that might be impossible.

McHenry said he appreciated the idea behind the bill, but also recognized it had problems, and, “It’s so close to the end of the session, time-wise, it’s next to impossible to make a good workable bill.”

This bill had co-sponsorship from Reps. Herbert Clark, D-Millinocket, and Michael Michaud, D-East Millinocket.

The final bill stemming from the G-P takeover of Great Northern would have required any company that had been involved in a merger and then closed or moved facilities, or laid off workers, to pay one full year’s wages as severance pay to any worker whose job was lost.

This bill had sponsorship by Pray, with co-sponsorship from Clark and Michaud.

But the Business Legislation Committee gave it a unanimous “ought-not-to-pass” recommendation, effectively killing it for this session.