Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paid Family Medical Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Small‑employer exemption for paid family leave splits committee; bill laid over after roll call
Summary
Representative Robbins's HF 2113 would exempt employers with 15 or fewer employees from Minnesota's Paid Family & Medical Leave program while allowing an employer opt‑in and, per discussion, possibly an employee opt‑in amendment. Business groups and many small employers supported the change; workers, child‑welfare advocates and unions opposed it. The motion to move the bill did not carry and it was laid on the table.
Representative Robbins introduced House File 2113 with an amendment narrowing the small‑employer exemption to firms with 15 or fewer employees and retaining an opt‑in for employers (and discussion about permitting employee opt‑in). Robbins and supporting trade groups said the amendment targets only the very smallest employers and that many small firms face disproportionate operational and administrative burdens from Minnesota's Paid Family & Medical Leave program.
Business groups, chambers, trade associations and many small business owners gave examples of compliance costs, training interruptions and operational difficulty when a key employee takes extended leave. Speakers included representatives from the National Federation of Independent Business, the Electrical Association, the Minnesota Chamber and owners of small retail and service firms who said the mandate's payroll tax, administrative complexity and potential for long absences could threaten their viability.
Opponents—including employees who used PFML, public‑health and child‑welfare advocates, union representatives and policy researchers—warned an exemption would strip coverage from roughly 450,000 Minnesotans and destabilize the insurance pool. Alexander Fitzsimmons of the Children's Defense Fund and Amity Foster and other personal witnesses described family health and bonding benefits from universal coverage; union witnesses argued carve‑outs would widen racial and gender disparities.
Committee members debated the mechanics of the amendment, whether employees should be allowed to opt in even if their employer does not, and how similar carve‑outs function in other states. The Department commissioner clarified that only a few states have limited premium exemptions for small employers but that most states cover workers regardless of employer size.
The author moved HF 2113 as amended for referral; a roll call recorded 7 ayes and 6 nays. The motion did not carry and the bill was laid on the table for further consideration. Sponsors indicated willingness to work on amendments to allow employee opt‑in and to clarify administrative details.
