The resolution for a controversial Labor Standards Board heads to the full city council for approval on November 14
In this article, we summarize what this board will entail, its intentions, and how it might impact private employers in Minneapolis. We examined the process by which this resolution was passed in the Public Health & Safety Committee without public comment in our Minneapolis Times article, “The ABCs of Sowing Distrust.”
Minneapolis Labor Standards Board (MLSB) Summary
The proposed resolution establishes the Minneapolis Labor Standards Board (MLSB) to engage with employers, workers, and community stakeholders on workplace regulations and policies. This board, classified as a Tier 3 body, will act as a public forum for collaborative dialogue and policy recommendations related to labor standards within the city. Key responsibilities of the MLSB include developing and submitting formal policy suggestions to the Mayor and City Council, advising on the implementation and enforcement of workplace regulations, and convening sector-specific workgroups to study conditions in industries that impact the city.
The MLSB will consist of 15 members appointed by the City Council and the Mayor, representing employers, employees, and community stakeholders. Members must be city residents or work in the city and are subject to eligibility criteria that exclude those under investigation for labor violations. The board will be part of the Civil Rights Department.
The MLSB’s duties extend to evaluating sectoral workplace conditions, monitoring emerging labor issues, and recommending employee training programs. Sectoral workgroups, formed by majority vote, will include representatives from employers, employees, and community groups to study sector-specific conditions and propose new standards.
The board is expected to provide annual work plans and performance reports to the City Council and Mayor. The resolution is set to take effect on May 1, 2025, replacing the existing Workplace Advisory Committee established in 2016.
What are the intentions of this board?
The resolution’s authors are Council Members (CM) Aisha Chughtai (Ward 10), Aurin Chowdhury (Ward 12), and Katie Cashman (Ward 7). CM Jason Chavez (Ward 9) amended the original proposal. According to the authors, this initiative aims to strengthen workplace equity, safety, and economic resilience in Minneapolis by fostering cross-sector collaboration and informed policy development.
Three possible benefits:
- Enhanced Collaboration and Dialogue: The MLSB aims to bring together employers, employees, and community stakeholders to create an inclusive forum for discussing workplace issues.
- Sector-Specific Policy Development: By allowing for the creation of sectoral workgroups, the board can address unique challenges and disparities within specific industries. This targeted approach can help develop policies that are tailored to the needs of particular sectors.
- Increased Accountability and Equity: The board’s focus on fair labor standards and workplace equity could help bridge income disparities, especially for workers of color who, according to Federal Reserve research, face wage gaps.
Impact on Private Employers
CM Michael Rainville (Ward 3) expressed some of the concerns private employers have raised. He told the committee, “This makes the City Government become a union organizer.” He further cautioned, “The business community has made it clear that when their leases are up, they’re going to leave Minneapolis and/or just simply lose their business.”
Other concerns include:
- Lack of Funding Transparency: The proposal does not specify clear sources of funding or a comprehensive budget plan, raising concerns about how the board will be financially supported. This ambiguity could lead to challenges in sustaining its operations.
- Potential Bureaucratic Delays: Establishing a new board and sectoral workgroups could introduce additional layers of bureaucracy.
- Uneven Representation and Influence: While the board seeks to include diverse voices, there may be concerns that certain stakeholders—such as larger business interests or specific advocacy groups—could wield more influence than others, potentially skewing outcomes or marginalizing smaller business owners and employees.
When we watched the committee meeting, it was Council President Elliott Payne (Ward 1) who unintentionally made the strongest case for opposing the board at the November 14 council meeting. He attempted to frame the board as a tool in the fight against figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, implying that billionaires and powerful individuals were exploiting workers and small businesses. He cited Uber and Lyft as examples of how hedge-fund-backed companies can disrupt local economies and hinder small businesses from competing. However, as we saw, the issue with Uber and Lyft had to be addressed at the state level, and the city’s actions ultimately distracted the state legislature from other priorities.
Positioning this board as a watchdog for Minneapolis is the wrong approach to addressing worker issues. These are regional challenges that should be managed at the state level. For instance, if the goal is to prevent a large construction company from exploiting workers in Minneapolis, there is no way to stop these companies from simply relocating to Richfield, Eden Prairie, or other nearby areas to avoid additional regulations and costs. Elon Musk moved Tesla’s headquarters from California to Austin, TX, to sidestep California’s high taxes and regulations. Moving a headquarters from Minneapolis to a nearby suburb would be even easier.
CM Payne argues that this board will “level the playing field” by holding businesses that exploit their workers accountable, thereby removing their advantage over companies that pay fair wages and treat their employees well. In theory, this sounds reasonable. However, in the real business world—a place with which our city council has limited first-hand experience—employers who choose to stay in Minneapolis may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those operating just outside the city limits. Businesses that relocate will avoid bureaucratic interference, the expense of additional employee training, and the impact of erratic and unpredictable ordinances, such as the Uber and Lyft regulations.
Contrary to what the council and their supporters at the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and unions might suggest, not all employers are oppressors. Many provide jobs that enable workers to support their families and collaborate with employees without the need for a negotiating table set by city or union officials. This does not mean exploitation is absent from our economy—far from it. But existing rules and regulations already govern wages and workplace conditions. The city council could focus its efforts on enforcing these existing rules.
Avoid Adding Barriers for Small Businesses
This board lacks funding and a system for enforcing the ordinances it creates. These shortcomings may lead both residents and employers to view it as a performative measure—one that creates chaos without helping those it claims to support.
Employers in Minneapolis, particularly small businesses, were excluded from speaking to the committee. Many of these businesses are already struggling. They have had to endure prolonged construction projects that keep customers away and continue to voice concerns about crime and safety. A person only needs to drive through Uptown and Hennepin Avenue to see the abandoned storefronts for evidence that business revitalization continues to be a work in progress. Small businesses, especially those owned by BIPOC residents, need support from the city council to stay afloat. Adding another layer of bureaucracy, increasing their costs, and operating under the assumption that all employers exploit their workers puts their survival at risk.
We strongly urge the city council to reconsider this resolution. Instead, focus on enforcing existing regulations. Advocate for the state legislature to pass statewide protections if necessary. Avoid creating another crisis, like what happened with the Uber and Lyft regulations. Small businesses in Minneapolis need regulatory clarity. Imposing additional barriers will only push them to leave the city—and when they do, they take their jobs and the tax revenue they generate with them.
This piece has been edited from its original publication in the Better Minneapolis newsletter.
