“I voted against the preemption legislation offered by Senator Miller yesterday. I did so because this bill is an example of a political argument pretending to be a policy argument. The bill is part of a national narrative put forth by the Chamber of Commerce and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) to attack workers and the autonomy of our locally elected officials. I am a strong advocate of local control. The preemption bill was a significant overreach, which would have stripped local governments of their ability to serve those who elected them.
The main concern put forth by proponents of preemption was with their ability to track the hours, pay, and sick time of employees who work across several cities. This is a valid concern. One that needs to be addressed. Yet the majority party choose to fall in line with national interests instead of prudent legislation that would have afforded the protections they seek without damaging local control. A simple compromise would have been to limit local ordinances to affect businesses based in their city limits. Instead they choose to offer legislation that is most assuredly going to be vetoed rather than work with the Governor and minority party to find some middle ground. This is why people hate politics. The majority party wants to use its power in St. Paul to tell urban, suburban, and rural cities how to manage their people. If this last election taught us anything, it taught us that people are tired of St. Paul telling them how to behave.”
The bill would prohibit the enactment of labor compensation/benefits at the local level. As written, the bill has three core components that prohibit local governments from:
· Establishing a minimum wage
· Requiring businesses to provide sick and safe time
· Establishing rules relative to benefits, terms of employment, or working conditions
· The effective date would make the bill retroactive for ordinances that were enacted on or after January 1, 2016.