Committee approves exemption letting small farms (five or fewer employees) opt out of earned sick-and-safe-time

The Senate Labor and Industry Committee voted Jan. 23 to advance Senate File 310, a bill that exempts family farms and other agricultural employers with five or fewer employees from Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law. The committee passed the bill in a roll-call vote, 8–4, and re‑referred it to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

Senator Doernick, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure provides a modest exemption for family farms and other small agricultural businesses that operate with a handful of employees and face unique operational burdens. He framed the change as a way to preserve family operations and address implementation challenges small farms reported after ESST took effect.

Supporters from multiple agricultural and small-business groups described the law’s administrative demands as onerous for very small operations. Lauren Schothorst of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce said small and mid-size employers—particularly those without HR staff—face “financial and operational impacts” and staffing challenges after the ESST mandate. Hunter Peterson of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation and Lucas Sjostrom of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association described livestock operations in particular as unable to delay essential tasks and thus sensitive to labor disruptions.

The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) testified with concerns about the public-health and worker-protection implications of a broad exemption. Josiah Moore, legislative director at DLI, told the committee that department estimates based on unemployment insurance data showed about 1,500 establishments and roughly 2,500 employees could be affected by the proposed exemption. Moore cautioned that the figure may be an undercount because not all agricultural workplaces appear in UI data. He also emphasized ESST’s public-health benefits—citing Centers for Disease Control guidance that workers exposed to avian influenza should stay home—and warned that exempting workers could harm both those workers and broader disease-control efforts.

Several tests and exchanges in committee highlighted conflicting counts and measurement challenges. Senator McEwen raised a USDA-based estimate offered by witnesses that suggested as many as roughly 27,000 workers could be affected; DLI staff said the USDA figure may include workers who are independent contractors, which would explain the discrepancy.

DLI also described outreach and education efforts: the department said it has reached more than 20,000 people through roughly 400 outreach events, and it has an employer checklist and sample notice employers may use to comply. DLI staff described a compliance approach focused on education, including an “intervention warning” letter and an “inform and educate” follow-up that requires a response before enforcement.

Committee members debated trade-offs between protecting workers and reducing burdens on small employers. Supporters argued that the exemption preserves family farms and reduces barriers to hiring; opponents said the law provides a basic floor of protection for workers and cautioned against removing benefits from people who use them. The committee ultimately adopted the bill and sent it to the Senate Committee on Agriculture with an 8–4 roll-call vote recorded in committee.

Roll-call results recorded in committee: Co-chair Doernick — Aye; Co-chair McEwen — No; Vice Chair Gruenhagen — Yes; Vice Chair Hochschild — Yes; Senator Kupack — Yes; Senator Leskie — Yes; Senator Marty — No; Senator (name transcribed as "Umu Verbatim") — No; Senator Pappas — No; Senator Pratt — Aye; Senator Rarick — Aye; Senator Wiesenberg — Aye. The clerk announced the tally as 8 ayes and 4 nays, and reported that Senate File 310 was passed and re-referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

Sponsors and witnesses asked that the department and lawmakers continue outreach and clarifying guidance for small employers on tracking accruals and notice requirements if the law remains in effect, and urged continued work on definitions and administrative support if the exemption is not adopted.