favor of a Minneapolis ordinance requiring paid sick leave. But, on the
opposite page, an editorial touted the wonders of a legislative move that
appears to be heading for passage that would not only preclude Minneapolis
and St. Paul and any Minnesota city from insisting on paid sick leave for
its employees: it would preclude cities' trying to require ANY improved
employee benefits by ordinance.
The newspaper presents for the first time--I don't recall any earlier
mention before this editorial--the reality that, behind the scenes,
legislators are working on "a grand bargain" ostensibly between business
and labor, that would "pre-empt city moves to regulate private-sector
employee benefits, which employers much desire, in exchange for launching a
state-administered paid family leave program for workers, a top priority
for labor."
The editorial continues: The proposal "would derail a proposed
private-sector paid sick leave requirement in Minneapolis that is on a fast
track . . . , and it would stop a similar move afoot in St. Paul."
Problem is, what's apparently being legislated without us is NOT paid sick
leave, but a "partial wage replacement for leaves related to pregnancy,
bonding with a new child or caregiving for a seriously ill family member."
Not applicable to one's own sickness, it seems. AND, employees will fund
this partially-paid "family" leave by contributing a sum from their own
wages. Employers will not bear any burden, financial or regulatory.
When Steve Cramer, of the Downtown Council and a member of the Minneapolis
task force on paid sick leave, came up with his lone dissent from the
group's otherwise unanimous vote for paid sick leave for hourly workers, he
added that the state should address the issue. Well, he hurried over to St.
Paul apparently, and made sure that progressive Minneapolis and St. Paul
would not be able to insist on improving their workers' lives. This is what
he, and Big Business, have been about in the legislative session.
There was no mention of who is working on this, there is no bill number,,
no indication from the celebrating Star Tribune editors of how anyone is to
oppose such a secretive, behind-the-scenes, do-it-at-the-end-of-session
stealth move to subvert the will of our big cities.
The Strib editors smugly say "With the 2016 Legislature due for adjournment
Monday, those efforts [to pre-empt Minneapolis and St. Paul] should go
public--and the public should cheer them on." But, what if we want to
protest, oppose, fight somehow?
Big Business got us again.
Connie Sullivan
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis