Things have felt a bit quieter in the Capitol in the weeks following the first chamber deadline.
Many bills have gone off to wait silently in the Joint Ways and Means Committee until the Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast is revealed May 14. Others were amended sufficiently in the first chamber to limit controversy through the remainder of the process.
But quieter doesn’t mean quiet.
Every session, some high-stakes bills demand debate through the entire process. Senate Bill 916, which extends unemployment benefits to striking workers, is one such bill.
The bill had multiple informational and public hearings in the Senate, and this week it began moving through the House.
The Senate amended the bill to include one week of ineligibility prior to striking workers being eligible to claim unemployment insurance benefits, and it would give employers the ability to reduce any backpay that might be negotiated (a relatively rare occurrence) by the amount of benefits paid.
The amended bill also includes language stating clearly that any unemployment benefits paid to school district or education service district employees due to a strike would be counted as part of their total compensation and deducted from future wages. The proponents are clear they don’t intend for employees to earn more than 100% of their pay, but we wanted the amendment to give additional certainty that regardless of what sort of return-to-work agreement a district might negotiate following a strike, the district wouldn’t bear the cost of unemployment insurance on top of salary and benefits.
We think this clarity of legislative intent would be important should a district find itself in the middle of a strike. However, we have also been clear that in such a situation, the process for adjusting pay and avoiding additional costs would be an administrative nightmare for a district.
An informational hearing Monday, Apil 28, in the House included a presentation by the Oregon Employment Department followed by questions from committee members. A public hearing Wednesday, April 30, included four panels, two each representing labor and employers. The panels were supposed to take an hour, leaving 30 minutes for public comments. Instead, the panels took the majority of the hearing, and only four individuals who were not part of the panels gave testimony.
I sat on a panel of public employers with colleagues from the Association of Oregon Counties and the League of Oregon Cities. Our specific concerns are somewhat unique based on the nature of our work, but the overall theme is that a policy that disrupts the balance of bargaining through the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act and potentially leads to more or longer strikes is bad for service delivery (in our case to students) and bad for taxpayers.
Policy committees must move bills by May 23. As we come into the home stretch for negotiations, it helps to compare the current version of SB 916 with policies in place elsewhere:
- In New Jersey, striking workers must wait 14 days before receiving unemployment benefits.
- In New York, striking workers are suspended from claiming unemployment benefits for the first two weeks of a strike. They may then claim unemployment, which can include serving a waiting week before benefits are paid.
- Washington state just passed a law allowing striking workers to collect unemployment for a maximum of six weeks. In Washington, workers are eligible to claim benefits on the second Sunday following the beginning of the strike, at which point they would serve their waiting week before receiving benefits.
It is also worth noting that in New York, public employees are prohibited from striking (although they still do, they must pay penalties). In neither New Jersey nor Washington do public employees have an affirmative legal right to strike.
If SB 916 passes in its current form, Oregon would have the most liberal policy in the nation for striking workers to collect unemployment insurance while out on strike.
– Stacy Michaelson
OSBA Government Relations and Communications Director
Correction: A March 7 Legislative Highlights article on Senate Bill 916 was updated to clarify potential employer costs.
