One can believe that more should be done to make work work for families and still oppose the recently tabled proposal for the city of Minneapolis to dictate job scheduling rules to all of its thousands of employers.
If one is Third Ward City Council Member Jacob Frey, one can and does.
First-termer Frey emerged in recent weeks as a visible and vocal opponent of the policy ideas on scheduling touted for several contentious months by Mayor Betsy Hodges. The 34-year-old DFL attorney has also let it be known that he would have given Major League Soccer's stadium overtures a warmer reception than DFLer Hodges did. And he's done nothing to tamp down speculation that his political ambitions run well beyond the Minneapolis City Council.
Let's hear him out, thought I — particularly on scheduling. It was the hottest button in Hodges' employment-related, equity-promoting Working Families Agenda. It has at least one good feminist — me — feeling torn.
It's easy to believe that unpredictable, just-in-time work schedules are detrimental to workers — particularly low-income single parents dealing with child or elder care, working multiple jobs and/or taking college classes in pursuit of a better career. It's easy to suspect that working women are disproportionately subjected to employer disregard for all the other responsibilities of adulthood that they bear. After all, the entire American economy has long been blind to the value of what was traditionally deemed "women's work."
But it's also easy to conjure the names and circumstances of businesses whose employment needs aren't predictable. Take funeral homes. Or event vendors. Or special-projects consultants. Or anything in Minnesota that's weather-dependent. A one-size-fits-all citywide scheduling policy would hit such businesses hard.
And that would be neither fair nor in keeping with the rightful role of government, Frey said he concluded.
"Laws exist not for the 98 percent that would do the right thing, but for the 2 percent that would flirt with bad activity in the absence of repercussions. Laws should target just that 2 percent, and should be narrowly tailored. Overbreadth would stifle privately generated entrepreneurial progress from the good actors, the kind that government should be cheering. That's what you have to look at every time you legislate."