Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Service Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill to mandate employer leave for legislators, citing business burdens
Summary
House Bill 1495, which would have required employers to grant leave for employees serving in the legislative assembly with protections for pay and benefits, failed to advance after committee members and business groups warned of costs and staffing impacts; committee adopted a do-not-pass recommendation.
Representative Austin Foss introduced House Bill 1495 to require employers to grant leaves of absence and certain employment protections for members of the legislative assembly. Foss said the measure would protect citizen legislators—farmers, teachers and other working North Dakotans—and lower barriers to service by safeguarding employment rights similar to protections given to servicemembers.
Committee members and witnesses questioned the bill’s impacts on employers, especially small businesses and industries requiring specialized employees. Andrea Fenwick of the Greater North Dakota Chamber testified in opposition, calling the mandate an added burden for businesses already struggling with labor shortages; she said employers could face high costs and difficulty finding temporary replacements, especially in rural areas and in specialized sectors such as healthcare and mining.
Lawmakers debated whether an employer mandate was the right approach. Representative Foss said he would be open to a threshold (for example, a 50-plus-employee exemption) to limit impacts on small employers; other members, including Representative Ruby and Vice Chair Osterly, said the bill would place an undue burden on employers and could discourage hiring or cause employers to be reluctant to allow staff to run for office.
Representative Shower moved a “do not pass” recommendation. After discussion the committee approved the do-not-pass recommendation on a roll call; the chair said the committee appreciated the bill’s intent but concluded the mandate would create significant hardship for employers. Representative Shower agreed to carry the bill to the floor as a do-not-pass report.
Why it matters: Proposals to protect employees who serve in a citizen legislature raise tradeoffs between increasing public-service access and imposing mandates on employers. Supporters argued the bill would expand who can serve in the legislature by reducing employer barriers; opponents said it would worsen hiring challenges and impose costs for businesses already citing labor shortages.
What’s next: The committee issued a do-not-pass recommendation; Representative Shower was selected to carry the bill forward with that recommendation.
