House File 1976 laid over after hours of divided testimony on changes to Minnesota paid family and medical leave

Representative Lee Baker, chair of the House Workforce, Labor and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee, moved House File 1976 — a proposal to modify Minnesota’s paid family and medical leave law — to be laid over for further consideration after about two hours of public testimony and member discussion.

The bill’s author, Representative Baker, presented an A-1 author’s amendment and the committee adopted that amendment by voice vote. “I’d like to be able to include the A-one amendment, to the bill, as presented and ask for your support,” Baker said during opening remarks. The committee then voted verbally and the motion prevailed.

Why it matters: HF 1976 proposes multiple changes to the paid family and medical leave framework enacted in 2023. Supporters of the bill, largely representing small-business groups and county and city officials, told the committee the current law creates administrative and fiscal burdens for smaller employers and public agencies. Opponents — including nurses, teachers, cancer advocacy groups and many labor organizations — said the bill would reduce leave access and weaken protections for low-wage and caregiving workers.

Major provisions discussed

- Benefit level and duration: Baker said his proposal replaces the existing progressive wage-replacement scale with a flat two-thirds pay replacement for beneficiaries and would cap leave available to employees of smaller employers at six weeks (whereas larger employers’ employees would be eligible for longer leave under the proposed structure). He said the change is intended to give “more choices” and make the program workable for small employers.

- Small-business and seasonal accommodations: The bill would change seasonal definitions and expand a seasonal exemption window from 150 to 180 days for some employers, Baker said, and includes options intended to reduce the operational impact on small businesses.

- Collective-bargaining interaction: HF 1976 would require negotiations between employers and exclusive representatives (unions) about how the state benefit interacts with collective bargaining agreements. The bill’s language drew strong criticism from union representatives who said it effectively excludes or disadvantages workers covered by collective bargaining.

- Premium split and administration: The A-1 amendment clarifies a 50/50 split of premiums between employer and employee; several school, county and city representatives urged that clarity as necessary for budgeting and payroll administration. Representative Baker’s draft also gives the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) an option to contract parts of administration (for example, a call center) to external providers; Baker said the change is intended to allow DEED to choose a private contractor if it can operate more efficiently.

Who testified and the main themes

Business and local-government voices urging modification: Andy Wilke, executive vice president of Greater Mankato Growth, told the committee members “sympathize with the many goals” of the 2023 law but said it is “the most generous and expansive in the nation” and creates uncertainty for employers. Tammy Phillippe, owner of Frame Minnesota, described the difficulty of replacing a highly skilled worker for 12 or 20 weeks and urged support for a six-week leave for small businesses.

County and school officials, including Barb Wechtman Brecke (Scott County Commissioner) and Kim Lewis (representing the Minnesota School Boards Association and several related education associations), pressed for the 50/50 premium clarification as essential to budgeting. Clay County’s HR director, Darren Brook, told the committee a projected contribution rate of 0.44% would cost his county more than $222,000 and said multiple bargaining units make staggered contribution rates administratively burdensome.

Labor, health-care and family-advocacy opposition: Multiple union leaders and labor advocates opposed HF 1976, saying it would narrow eligibility, reduce leave time and shift protections away from workers. Chris Rubish, president of the Minnesota Nurses Association, said HF 1976 “takes a step back from that promise” and urged members to vote no. Brad Leto, secretary-treasurer of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, said the bill “is designed to set up the state’s paid leave program to fail,” citing exclusion of collectively bargained workers and the risk of privatizing administration.

Health and caregiving advocates warned reduced leave would harm people with extended medical needs: Dana Bacon, senior director of state government affairs for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, described multi-month and multi-year cancer treatment timelines and said shortening leave access could leave patients without needed time to recover. Alexandra Fitzsimmons of the Children’s Defense Fund Minnesota and Emily Myatt of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network similarly urged preserving the current law’s leave length and broad family definitions.

Supporters of the bill argued it makes the program implementable for small employers and local governments: Justin Church, an HR consultant who works with 10–100 employee firms, told the committee small employers face heavy financial and administrative burdens under the current statute and that HF 1976 “offers much needed flexibility.” Sean Pett (Main Street Alliance) and several small-business owners testified that a state-run, predictable program is preferable to private coverage options many small employers cannot obtain.

Committee action and next steps

Representative Baker moved and the committee laid over HF 1976 for further consideration at a future meeting; the author said the hearing would continue in the coming week. The A-1 author’s amendment was adopted by voice vote during the hearing; no roll-call vote or tally was recorded in the transcript. The chair said the bill is being “laid over” and not reported out of committee at this time.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: The hearing primarily collected public testimony from employers, union leaders, health advocates, school and county officials, and small-business owners. Testimony focused on the bill’s anticipated effects on leave length, cost-sharing, seasonal exemptions and interaction with collective bargaining agreements.

- Direction/disposition: The committee adopted an A-1 author’s amendment clarifying premium split and other items; Representative Baker moved to lay HF 1976 over for additional consideration. The bill was laid over for future hearings; the transcript does not record a final committee vote on passage or rejection.

What the transcript does not specify

The transcript records no roll-call vote totals for the amendment or the lay-over motion, and it does not list a precise implementation timeline beyond references to a possible one-year delay discussed by some testifiers. Several witnesses offered numerical estimates (for example, Clay County’s $222,000 projection); those figures are presented as testimony and not as committee-findings.

Looking ahead

Committee members said they expect to continue the conversation in follow-up meetings; Chair Baker and Co-chair Pinto both signaled further sessions. Members on both sides asked DEED and local administrators for implementation details during future consideration.

Ending

After panel testimony and member questions, the committee chair announced HF 1976 would be laid over and the committee adjourned. The committee indicated it will reconvene for further discussion and possible changes before taking a final action on the bill.