Minn. committee continues debate on changes to state paid family and medical leave bill

Representative Ben Baker (chair) brought back House File 1976 to the Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee on March 19 for roughly 30 minutes of member questions and discussion.

The bill’s author, Representative (speaker 1), said House File 1976 would provide six weeks of paid leave for employees at businesses with 50 or fewer employees while retaining 12 weeks for larger employers. He told the committee the change is intended to lower program and premium costs and keep the program’s premium near the 0.7 percent rate the state first targeted.

The discussion focused on three recurring concerns: whether the proposal would undercut the program’s universal floor by excluding workers covered by collective bargaining unless unions and employers opt in, how the proposed flat 67 percent wage-replacement rate would affect low-income workers, and an expansion of the seasonal-employee exemption from 150 to 180 days.

“Everything you mentioned is actually all negotiable,” the bill author said, describing his intent to meet with unions and employers to refine language. He said the bill would give unions a choice to opt into the state program rather than automatically covering collectively bargained workers.

Representative Luke Frazier (speaker 4) repeatedly pressed the author on the bargaining exclusion and the program’s universality. “If you are excluding a whole swath of people, collective of folks that are unionized and collective bargaining agreements … we won’t have that universal floor that we were looking for,” Frazier said. He warned that if employers refuse to cooperate at the bargaining table, large groups of workers could be excluded “for a long period of time or … in perpetuity.”

Frazier also questioned the effect of a flat 67 percent wage-replacement rate, saying it would hit low-income and seasonal workers hardest. “Simplicity could be harmful to low-income workers that then are not gonna be able to get up to the level of wage replacement that they would need to actually be sustainable,” he said.

The bill would also add an option for third‑party administration of claims. The author said the department of labor and industry did not request that change and that the provision is modeled on other states where private contractors perform call-center and claims functions under a state‑mandated program. He said the provision would be optional.

On seasonal workers, Representative Frazier raised the concern that expanding the seasonal exemption to 180 days could exclude low‑wage seasonal workers who face high‑risk jobs from critical leave. The author replied that many seasonal businesses operate roughly six months and that the change responds to feedback from hospitality and related industries.

Committee members, including Representative Wayne Johnson and others, offered different perspectives: some stressed protecting small employers’ flexibility and competitiveness; others emphasized protecting the program’s universal coverage and adequacy for medically necessary leave.

No amendment was offered and the committee closed discussion without taking a formal vote on House File 1976. The bill’s author said he will continue meeting with labor organizations, businesses and agency staff to revise language.

What’s next: The author said he is drafting potential amendments and intends further stakeholder talks before the bill is scheduled for additional committee action.