Senate Bill 916 has drawn much attention this session by both education advocates and advocates of good governance in general. It’s had multiple hearings in both chambers, inspired multiple editorials from the Oregonian, and I’ve stopped keeping track of how many times I’ve written about it in these weekly updates.
For better or worse, there will likely be more to come, but it’s the topic of at least one more update.
SB 916 in its amended version (see my column from May 16 for an overview of that amendment) came to the House floor on Wednesday, June 4. After roughly 2.5 hours of discussion, the bill passed 33-23. The debate was passionate, and legislators shared a record 29 “floor letters” (documents that legislators can ask the chief clerk of the House to distribute to every member’s desk on the chamber floor).
Much of the debate centered around public employers generally and schools specifically. I think it is important to keep in mind that the bill’s proponents have said from the outset that their intention was never for striking employees to be paid unemployment benefits on top of their normal compensation. The amendments negotiated “for schools” have only focused on ensuring districts don’t pay striking workers twice, through their normal compensation and unemployment benefits.
With our obligation to our members, students and taxpayers to use school money wisely, we have been clear that we believe SB 916 is bad policy that will increase costs to schools without helping children. But we have worked to ensure that any version of the bill that might pass is at least as clear as possible for school districts to make implementation at least possible.
That’s not about approval of the policy but ensuring that legislation is, at a minimum, written well.
Because it was amended in the House, SB 916 must go back to the Senate for a concurrence vote, which is scheduled for Tuesday, June 10. If there is concurrence, the bill goes to the governor’s desk. If there is not, it must go to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers.
The Senate still has the opportunity to push for additional amendments. Specifically, we would hope to see them add guardrails against abuse and unintended consequences such as an additional week of ineligibility before benefits would kick in, a shorter cap on benefits, a sunset on the bill, and annual reports to the Legislature.
We have engaged with district staff and the Oregon Employment Department throughout session to understand the implications and challenges of SB 916. As our understanding has evolved, we have shared those updates with legislators.
Our hope is that as members of the Senate likewise have had the chance to learn more, they will take this opportunity to pass a tighter, better version of the bill.
– Stacy Michaelson
OSBA Government Relations and Communications Director
