Workers and unions are being pitted against Salem’s corporate interests by a plan that would allow striking employees to get unemployment benefits.
Senate Bill 916, which is supported by numerous Democrats in both chambers, including powerful party and committee leaders, was the subject of public testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Business on Thursday.
The bill’s supporters, labor unions, and employees contended that it would balance the playing field in strike talks by preventing workers who are attempting to defend themselves by boycotting work as a last resort from being forced into a contract.
Gina Ottinger, a Providence emergency department nurse who is 28 days into the biggest health care strike in Oregon history, stated that when we go on strike, we not only lose our money, but also our ability to care for our family. Management keeps getting paid while we give up our livelihoods to stand up for what’s right and to support a more robust health care system in Oregon.
The League of Oregon Cities, chambers of business, and representatives of grocery companies opposed the bill, arguing that it would weaken the integrity of Oregon’s unemployment funds and encourage longer or more frequent strikes by decreasing the stakes for workers.
According to Amanda Dalton, president of the Northwest Grocery Retail Association, the law defeats the point of strikes. It’s probably going to lessen the pressure on both parties to come to an agreement.
Republicans questioned whether small businesses would be forced to foot the bill for giant corporations’ striking employees’ unemployment benefits.
According to the Oregon Employment Department, the bill would cost $5.3 million from the state’s unemployment fund during the 2025–2027 biennium, according to Lindsi Leahy, head of the state’s unemployment division. According to Leahy, that is less than 1% of the yearly payout, which was roughly $1.5 billion over the previous two calendar years.
According to Leahy, employer taxes provide the majority of funding for the unemployment fund. Employers pay taxes according to a tax schedule and an experience rating based on the frequency of unemployment insurance claims made by their former employees.
According to Leahy, firms whose employees are on strike would often suffer the most from offering unemployment benefits to striking employees. “Unless they had a strike themselves, it wouldn’t be sort of socialized among all other businesses,” she said.
According to Leahy, the estimated $5.3 million impact on the trust fund probably won’t have enough of an effect on the employer tax schedule, but a company’s experience rating might shift if its employees take unemployment benefits while on strike.
Sen. Cedric Hayden, R-Fall Creek, questioned the department’s forecasts and asked for assurance that a strike by workers at larger companies wouldn’t result in higher taxes for small firms.
Hayden stated, “I’m just going to put on record now that I think that $5 million is going to be significantly underestimated if the employees that are involved in a strike suddenly have income.”
According to Leahy, the plan has no safeguards requiring only big businesses to pay for striking employees’ unemployment benefits.
The City of Eugene, together with the League of Oregon Cities, opposed the bill, claiming it would be prohibitively costly for them. According to league lobbyist Scott Winkels, the majority of public companies directly reimburse the state for the unemployment compensation paid to their former employees rather than contributing to the unemployment fund.
Winkels contended that more strikes would result from the bill. Additionally, he stated that forcing towns to cover the unemployment benefits of striking workers would violate a clause in the Oregon Constitution that prohibits the state from imposing unfunded requirements on local governments and would likely result in legal action.
According to a hypothetical scenario put forth by a city of Eugene spokesperson, if the 690 members of the largest strike-eligible employee union in the city went on strike, those workers would probably be eligible for up to $750 in weekly unemployment benefits. In addition to the expense of hiring temporary workers and making up any lost revenue, government relations manager Ethan Nelson stated that the city would have to reimburse $1.5 million for a three-week strike.
Nelson contended that since many unions use the money they receive from members to assist pay striking employees, this law shifts the financial responsibility from them to the company.
Education strikes are extremely uncommon, Cynthia Branger Mu ez, a public relations consultant for the Oregon Education Association, said lawmakers. According to her, there have only been eight strikes in the more than 1,700 education contracts the union has negotiated since 2000.
According to Mu oz, Senate Bill 916 would have provided up to nine weeks of unemployment insurance coverage if it had been in effect.
According to Mu oz, this law would offer a small, short-term safety net for all employees who, like teachers, forgo compensation in order to enhance the systems they operate in.
The strike bill was not put to a vote by lawmakers on Thursday. Next week, the committee intends to hold another public hearing on the bill.
Sami Edge writes for The Oregonian on politics and higher education. She may be contacted at (503) 260-3430 or [email protected].
Latest local politics stories
-
Budget cuts jeopardize program providing heat pumps for low-income Oregonians
-
Multnomah County considering 2 finalists for chief operating officer job
-
Oregon coast county mulls aiding ICE arrests, but rejects it, fearing repercussions from Salem
-
1 man died from hypothermia in Portland, officials confirm
-
Fees to record documents, register marriages would rise if lawmakers cede to county clerks pleas
