One more piece to the Minnesota Melee I had posted about here. In addition to the preemption and PSL bills that have been introduced in Minnesota, another bill, a bill of a type I have never seen in all my meanderings through PSL bills, has been introduced. House Bill 2107 does not prohibit a city from enacting a PSL law. To that extent, it is not a preemption bill. However, it directs that if a city enacts a PSL law (or increases the minimum wage or adopts scheduling restrictions) for employees other than its own city employees, the city forfeits the local government aid it would otherwise receive from the state. The amount of aid to each city is determined annually according to a statutory formula. More than $519 million in local government aid will be distributed in 2017, according to the state Department of Revenue.
The financial forfeiture makes this non-preemption bill feel like a preemption bill. While legislators would be able to say that they did not prevent cities from enacting a PSL law, the reality is that the forfeiture will likely prevent cities from enacting a PSL law! The concept of using financial forfeiture to coerce compliance is not new. The federal government uses this approach with states often. A state’s application of the concept to PSL would be new.