I’m watching the action at the Minnesota State Legislature with an eye toward what is happening in Duluth, too.

I look at these two initiatives. I wish I had some principle here, like “local control is always best” or something like that, but I don’t. I just prefer the results of the Duluth ordinance over the results of the state law. If I liked the results of the state law better, I would prefer that.

What do you think, comparing:

The work of Duluth’s “Earned Sick and Safe Time Task Force,” which “gathers information, collects public input, proposes the best options for implementing ESST policies and brings forward policy recommendations.”

vs.

SF 580 as introduced – 90th Legislature (2017 – 2018)

A bill for an act relating to employment; providing uniformity for employment mandates on private employers;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 181.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. TITLE.
This act shall be titled the “Uniform State Labor Standards Act.”

Sec. 2. [181.741] EXPRESS PREEMPTION; UNIFORMITY OF PRIVATE
EMPLOYER MANDATES.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given them.

(b) “Employer” means a private person employing one or more employees in the state.

(c) “Local government” means a home rule charter city, statutory city, town, county, the Metropolitan Council, a metropolitan agency as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 5a, or a special district.

Subd. 2. Express preemption. (a) A local government must not adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local resolution, or local policy requiring an employer to pay an employee a wage higher than the applicable state minimum wage rate provided in section 177.24.

(b) A local government must not adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local resolution, or local policy requiring an employer to provide either paid or unpaid leave time.

(c) A local government must not adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local resolution, or local policy regulating the hours or scheduling of work time that an employer provides to an employee. This paragraph does not preempt an ordinance, local resolution, or local policy limiting the hours a business may operate.

(d) A local government must not adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local resolution, or local policy requiring an employer to provide an employee a particular benefit, term of employment, or working condition.

Subd. 3. Local governments as employers and contractors. This section does not regulate wages, benefits, terms of employment, working conditions, or attendance policies:

(1) provided to an employee of a local government;

(2) agreed to in a contract for goods or services provided to a local government; or

(3) agreed to in a contract for goods or services funded in whole or in part by financial assistance from a local government.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective upon final enactment and applies to ordinances, local policies, and local resolutions enacted on or after January 1, 2016.