Striking public employees in Oregon would become the first in the nation to be eligible for weekly unemployment checks under a bill heading to the Senate floor for a vote.
Senate Bill 916 would open up unemployment benefits to all striking workers, whether public or private sector. Those payments are currently available only to employees who are out of work through no choice of their own.
But while New York and New Jersey are the only states that currently have similar provisions on the books, those states from striking. Oregon does not have an across-the-board ban 鈥� and as SB 916 passed out of committee on a party-line vote Thursday, to strike to transit workers was set to be introduced in the Senate.
The unemployment bill has become one of the more hotly debated proposals early in this year鈥檚 legislative session. It was the subject of five separate hearings before Thursday鈥檚 vote, far more scrutiny than most of the 3,000-plus bills introduced this year.
The bill鈥檚 labor union backers and supportive Democrats insist that access to payments that can will offer workers an even playing field while striking, ensuring that employers can鈥檛 simply wait until employees are financially forced to the bargaining table
鈥淥ur lowest-paid minimum-wage workers who are living paycheck to paycheck aren鈥檛 truly able to access their right to strike if they functionally can鈥檛 afford to go a week or two without pay 鈥� or longer,鈥� said state Sen. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, who voted in favor of the bill Thursday.
Public employers, business groups and Republican lawmakers believe the bill will lead to more frequent strikes. They say that could pose extra costs for cities, school districts and other public employers 鈥� which reimburse the state鈥檚 $6.4 billion Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund for every dollar paid to former employees.
Other businesses pay into the fund via quarterly or annual employer taxes. They worry that increased demand for benefits by striking workers could force their tax rates up.
鈥淭his is just one more of many cuts that will cost small businesses,鈥� said state Sen. Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles. 鈥淭his will have a negative impact on our school districts. Absolutely it will. There鈥檚 no question about it. This will have a negative impact on our health system.鈥�
An amendment to the bill before it passed out of committee sought to address some of those concerns.
It ensured that workers who received unemployment checks while striking might have to reimburse the state if they receive back pay for strike days.
Another tweak ensured school districts could deduct the amount of unemployment benefits received from an employee鈥檚 total compensation. Both changes were aimed at making sure striking workers can not functionally receive a pay bump because of unemployment pay while on strike.
The amendment also made striking workers eligible for benefits after two weeks of striking, up from a single waiting week in the original bill.
How SB 916 would impact the state鈥檚 unemployment fund if passed has been a key question.
The Oregon Employment Department analyzed strike activity over the last decade in an attempt to answer that question. Through that lens, it estimated public employers might be required to reimburse the state $2.1 million for unemployment payments to striking workers over the next two years, and that the trust fund might pay private-sector workers an additional $2.6 million, according to an analysis shared with interested parties.
But strikes have grown longer and more prevalent in recent months 鈥� including weekslong strikes by Portland teachers and Providence nurses. When the employment department attempted to forecast the impact of SB 916 based on strikes over just the past three years, it came up with far higher predicted payments: $5.9 million for public employees and $5.3 million for private workers.
Those payments would not be enough to increase employer taxes that pay for unemployment insurance, the department said.
Even with the amendment Thursday, groups representing Oregon cities and school boards opposed the legislation, as did the state鈥檚 largest business lobby group, Oregon Business & Industry.
Scott Winkels, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, told OPB Wednesday that city leaders grappling with tough budgets could face additional costs if they are forced to pay both for the unemployment benefits of striking employees and hire temporary workers to fill crucial functions like wastewater management.
Winkels said cities are likely to argue the bill is an unfunded mandate. Under a law , a city could plead its case before an arbitrator, who could order the state to foot most of the bill for new costs.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 know what choice we would have,鈥� Winkels said. 鈥淚f we鈥檙e trying to fund a new contract, pay the unemployment rates and pay temporary workers, we would have to use every tool at our disposal.鈥�
Union leaders were just as adamant that the changes offered by the bill move Oregon in the right direction.
鈥淪B 916 simply and modestly levels the playing field a notch by helping make sure that workers are not starved into a contract that perpetuates the ills of our society at large,鈥� Graham Trainor, president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, said in a hearing last month.
Washington state is this year.
