Blog

Preemption: A Growing, Calculated Threat to Democracy

| Apr 5, 2013

From Vermont and New York City to Washington state, momentum and support for paid sick days policies are high. More than a dozen campaigns are working across the country to advance paid sick days and, last month, we celebrated victories in Portland and Philadelphia when city councils in those cities approved paid sick days measures. But with the great success of paid sick days and other pro-worker policies has come a disturbing trend: State-level legislation designed to prevent cities and counties from passing their own paid sick days standards and other workplace protections.

This “preemption” strategy first appeared in 2011 in Wisconsin, where the state legislature passed and Governor Scott Walker signed legislation to effectively void a Milwaukee paid sick days measure that passed in 2008 with the approval of nearly 70 percent of voters. It was an outrageous abridgement of local democracy. And it was just the beginning.

There is growing evidence that anti-worker groups such as the National Restaurant Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are supporting these preemption bills. In 2012, the strategy surfaced again in Louisiana, where state legislators passed a more expansive preemption law than Wisconsin’s. The Louisiana law prevents local authorities from passing any basic workplace protections.

Now, preemption bills are being considered in even more states:

  • A bill in Mississippi passed quickly through the state House and Senate and has been signed by the governor. Now law, it preempts both paid sick days and minimum wage standards, to the detriment of Mississippi workers.
  • In Florida, where opponents kept the citizens of Orange County from voting on a local paid sick days measure last fall, state legislators are attempting to prohibit all localities from passing their own standards. This far-reaching legislation threatens to preempt not only paid sick days ordinances, but also to void local policies that affect living wage, domestic violence leave and other standards. The Florida Coalition for Local Control is fighting back.
  • In Michigan, preemption legislation was introduced with the backing of the Michigan Restaurant Association and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Advocates on the ground, along with allies in the legislature, are fighting it, armed with the fact that 60 percent of Michigan voters support paid sick days standards.
  • Legislators in Arizona and Indiana have also introduced broad preemption bills that are in danger of passing. In Arizona, the preemption of local wage and benefit measures by the state legislature is actually illegal according to a 2006 ballot measure and the state constitution. So, if the bill passes, the state – and taxpayers – could face a costly lawsuit. Indiana’s bill is also controversial: In addition to usurping local control, it may overturn existing municipal non-discrimination ordinances.
  • In Washington state, legislators have introduced a preemption bill in response to the paid sick days ordinance that Seattle passed in 2011. Local advocates have rightly identified it as an attempt to undermine the democratic process and silence the will of the people. In the meantime, Washington is considering a statewide paid sick days bill.

Most legislators who are promoting preemption bills claim workplace standards should not be enacted at the local level, but none have offered state-level solutions at a time when millions of workers and their families suffer without the basic paid sick days protection they need. This is irresponsible and one more reason that state legislators should see preemption efforts for what they are: misguided and harmful efforts to undermine democracy.

Local paid sick days advocates are increasingly aware of the threat posed by preemption bills, and they are redoubling their efforts. State preemption bills make an even stronger case for a national standard like the one proposed in the Healthy Families Act, which was introduced in Congress last month.

No matter where you live or work, no one should have to choose between job and family because he or she cannot earn paid sick days. Workers and families know it. Business leaders know it. And lawmakers increasingly know it. Preemption efforts may continue, but they will not stop the push to increase access to a standard that all workers so urgently need.

About the Author

Vicki Shabo

Vicki Shabo

Vicki Shabo is vice president at the National Partnership for Women & Families and is one of the nation's leading experts on paid family and medical leave, paid sick days and the workplace policy advocacy landscape. She previously served for more than four years as the organization's director of work and family programs. Shabo is responsible for the strategic direction of the National Partnership’s work to promote fair and family friendly workplaces and leads the organization’s work on paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, expansion and enforcement of the Family and Medical Leave Act, workplace flexibility, fair pay and pregnancy discrimination. She serves as a contact on workplace policy issues for key national allies, researchers, businesses and state and local advocates and has been quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, USA Today, CNN and MSNBC, among other outlets.

Shabo brings a unique background in law and politics to her work: Prior to joining the National Partnership in 2010, she practiced law in the litigation department at WilmerHale, a large international law firm. Before embarking on a legal career, she worked with both Celinda Lake and Harrison Hickman, serving as a pollster and political strategist to political candidates, ballot campaigns, advocacy organizations and media outlets. Through this work, she developed research and communications expertise on issues of particular concern to women. Shabo's earlier professional experience includes a stint with the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

Shabo graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in politics and American studies from Pomona College, and holds a Master of Arts in political science from the University of Michigan. She earned her law degree with high honors from the University of North Carolina, where she served as editor in chief of the North Carolina Law Review. After law school, she clerked for the Honorable Michael R. Murphy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Salt Lake City.