Unemployment extension for laid-off mine workers gets tangled up at Capitol
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Laid-off mining workers saw encouraging signs from state lawmakers Thursday about their ability to access additional unemployment benefits while taconite facilities are idled even if they don’t know how a final deal will shake out.
It has been a week of uncertainty for those workers at the state Capitol. On Wednesday, a bill to extend unemployment benefits for longer stalled after being connected with a regulatory measure for the facilities they work in. A day later, a more-compact measure advanced through a House committee with more steps to go before being finalized.
The underlying goal is to offer reassurance during the latest round of layoffs at iron ore mines, with an estimated 600 workers sidelined at Cleveland-Cliffs last month. The company temporarily ceased operations at two of its Minnesota mines.
That has led to a pair of proposals in the Minnesota Legislature to extend unemployment insurance benefits for those workers until around Christmas if they’re still idled. The plans would lengthen the normal limit on unemployment benefits for another half a year, or 26 weeks.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
The bill that passed unanimously Thursday through the House Workforce, Labor and Economic Development Committee does not include environmental regulation changes that were in a similar bill that was discussed at length on Wednesday.
Preliminary estimates say the unemployment extension would cost between $10 million to $12 million.
“If we do not get this extension and provide hope to our members, they will not be able to stay, as a lot of them are young, with children,” said Al King, who is with the United Steelworkers Local 6115. He testified Wednesday before the House Workforce, Labor and Economic Development Committee.
Both plans offer the broader benefits window. But the Republican-introduced one also seeks changes to environmental regulations that the mine owners say they need to stay afloat for the long-term.
“When you have a mining job and your life is supported by that you can’t just wait around and hope that when you hear the words temporary, indefinite from the company that that's going to be just a short term layoff,” King told lawmakers.
The two-part proposal, sponsored by Republicans, went down on a deadlocked vote in the House committee. Democrats objected to the unemployment benefits being linked to environmental regulation changes for mining facilities.
Rep. Spencer Igo, R-Wabana Township, represents a portion of the Iron Range.
“It doesn’t actually cut regulations,” Igo told the reporters in a press conference following the committee hearing on Wednesday. “It actually, in some ways, puts good, safe standards into effect so miners and companies know what they have to do.”
One change relates to the state’s sulfate standard, designed to protect wild rice. State regulators have recently begun to enforce the rules on sulfate pollution. Mining companies have long argued it’s too costly to meet the state’s strict limits.
This week, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld sulfate limits imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on a taconite mine owned by U.S. Steel. The company asked for a more-lenient standard.
Rep. Natalie Zeleznikar, R-Fredenberg Township, said without the regulatory change, there is a greater chance that the mines might be closed for longer or for good. She said the Legislature needs to send a message that the state is invested in the industry for the long-term.
“Hope, it comes from having a job. Unemployment is temporary. They’re not going to have permanent unemployment for a lifetime. They know it. I know it. We all know it,” she said. “We need to give hope. And so I commend you for having a solution, because the solution is to make mining happen.”
The version dealing only with jobless benefits is still pending and due for a hearing on Thursday.
Rep. Pete Johnson, DFL-Duluth, said it’s “bad process” to attach the two issues in a single bill because it leverages the livelihoods of workers.
Johnson said the linkage “has the potential to damage both the goals that both of the goals that it claims to achieve, that protecting workers and moving permit reform forward,” he said. “They need to stand on their own and find their own paths. And based on many of the conversations I’ve had it sounds like that’s happening, although it may be slower than some folks like.”
Johnson’s bill, without the regulation changes, was the one that passed through committee on Thursday.
It’s not the first time Iron Range mining layoffs have caused a standoff over unemployment benefits.
In 2015, then-Gov. Mark Dayton pushed unsuccessfully for a deal for an unemployment extension during a mining industry downturn. He wanted lawmakers to agree to something to approve in a special session. It never got called.
It took until the following March to get to common ground and only after the benefits got lumped in with a business tax cut.
Another unemployment extension for laid-off Cleveland Cliffs workers was approved in 2023.
MPR News correspondent Dan Kraker contributed to this story from Duluth.
