A bill to allow striking workers to access unemployment benefits squeaked through the Senate, Thursday on a vote of 16 to 12, advancing despite the no votes of two Democrats who joined Republican colleagues in voting against the bill.
Democrats Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro and Jeff Golden of Ashland voted no.
Passing the bill would make Oregon the first state in the nation to allow public employees to collect unemployment benefits while on strike. The bill was introduced by Democrats at the request of the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions. It prompted hours of passionate testimony and drew hundreds of letters from workers and employers both in favor and against.
Proponents argue that the bill will help level the playing field between striking workers and employers, ensuring workers can feed themselves and their children while exercising their right to strike for better wages and working conditions.
The bill would barely impact the state’s unemployment fund, they say: The Oregon Employment Department estimated that if striking workers had received unemployment benefits in the last 10 years, it would have cost the fund just $4.4 million. The average unemployment check is about $500 per week, Senate Democrats said in a news release.
“We cannot expect Oregonians working in unsafe conditions for inadequate pay to do nothing,” Sen. Kathleen Taylor of Portland said in a statement. “We have to ensure they can keep food on the table while they fight for change.”
Opponents argue the bill will increase the frequency of strikes and create a burden for public employers including cities and school districts that have to pay back unemployment benefits.
“Unemployment benefits were never meant to bankroll labor strikes,” Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham of The Dalles said in a statement. “This bill rewrites the rules to reward political allies at the direct expense of small businesses, health care facilities and schools, many of which are already struggling with workforce shortages and rising costs.”
The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates that public employers would have paid $2.1 million to cover benefits for workers on strike in the current budget cycle, and could pay $3.2 million for the next budget cycle. This is probably less than what those employers would have otherwise paid striking workers in wages, the office said, but it is an added burden for employers who have to hire temporary workers during a strike.
Golden told his colleagues on Thursday that he values organized labor as a counterweight to increasingly concentrated corporate power. He agreed with proponents of the bill that large private employers have the means to “starve workers into bad deals,” he said.
But that same dynamic doesn’t always apply to public sector employers, Golden argued. Cities and counties can’t sit back and bide their time during a strike without letting services collapse, he said. He wasn’t willing to support the proposal at a time when many municipalities are already “wobbling in a way that is truly frightening for our future.”
“I want to say this to my long time friends in organized labor: We need you. You are key to moving Oregon to a fairer economy, a place where people who work hard on the line and in the trenches have a realistic shot at a secure and stable life,” Golden said. “We have to move in that direction, but please don’t ask us to do that on the backs of our municipalities.”
The bill requires workers who collect back pay after a strike to reimburse the unemployment fund. It also specifies that teachers unions can deduct the unemployment benefits that striking teachers received, ensuring that teachers don’t receive more than 100% of what districts agreed to pay them.
Sollman, a former school board member, told her colleagues on the Senate floor that she’s long supported the work of public employees and classroom teachers. But she said Senate Bill 916 would threaten the stability of cities grappling with tight budgets and school districts facing the possibility of losing federal funding from the Trump administration.
“If I believed that Senate Bill 916 would help Oregon classroom teachers in lighting fires in our students, then it would have my support,” Sollman said. “But rather than helping Oregon’s schools and teachers, I believe Senate Bill 916 will have the opposite effect.”
Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, a Corvallis Democrat, argued that federal uncertainty makes the bill more urgent. A year ago, she would have said that workers had protections to stand on a level playing field with their employers, she said. Now she worries those employees could lose support from federal agencies that investigate workplace safety, wage theft, fair pay, civil rights violation and discrimination complaints.
“We have to stand up for the people that are serving us,” she said. “I do not believe that this will lead to multiple strikes or longer strikes, but I do believe that at a time when safety is what our workers are telling us they need most, that it will give a little bit more safety to advocate for safety.”
Sami Edge covers higher education and politics for The Oregonian. You can reach her at sedge@oregonian.com or (503) 260-3430.
Latest local politics stories
- Federal cuts to election security programs spark concerns among Oregon elections officials
- More Oregonians could access e-bikes under proposed bills. But lawmakers have questions
- Washington County sewer officials ran up huge food tab on ratepayers’ dime
- Kotek shuffles agency leadership after resignation of key staffer
- Multnomah County moving forward with $85M animal shelter rebuild