Skip to main content
One of this legislative session’s most hotly debated bills passed out of the Oregon House on Wednesday morning, now one step closer to becoming law.
Senate Bill 916 would grant striking workers unemployment benefits after two weeks. Debate about the bill has concentrated on how it might affect public employers, specifically cities, counties and school districts. While private employers’ payroll taxes fund Oregon’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, thus cushioning the bill’s impact, public employers don’t pay into this trust and would shoulder the full cost of unemployment benefits.
The bill has been amended in the House, so it will head back to the Senate, where it first passed in late March, for another vote. It passed the House on party lines, by a 33-23 vote. In the Senate, two Democrats, Sen. Janeen Sollman (D-Hillsboro) and Sen. Jeff Golden (D-Ashland), voted in opposition to the bill.
Democrats said the bill would be the first step forward in creating more equal conditions for employees during strikes. Many said that employers currently hold the advantage in being able to stall their fairest possible offer and wait their employees out.
“Today, Oregon has a unique opportunity to face our challenges head on. To stand up for workers in every single one of our districts,” said Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-Southwest Portland). “We are primed, more than any other state in the nation, to pass a model version of this legislation.…We must not stand by when our sisters and brothers who show up to do the work every day are stonewalled by their employers.”
Republicans were also unified in their opposition. Among many, Rep. Ed Diehl (R-Scio) said he felt the bill was “trampling” the original intent of unemployment insurance. He said that money should be saved for people who are out of work for no fault of their own and is not meant to be converted into a strike fund. Others said it would cause more strikes, an assertion several unions across the state have rebutted.
Several other Republicans used their time to emphasize the bill’s consequences for Oregon’s educational outcomes. As WW has reported, SB 916 has put school districts in an especially difficult position amid growing budget deficits. In May, eight superintendents from Oregon’s largest districts wrote a letter in opposition to the bill, saying it “risks further diverting critical resources away from students and classrooms.”
In New York and New Jersey, two states where a similar bill has passed, public employees including teachers are barred from striking. Washington, which passed another comparable bill during its legislative cycle, has the same policy. If SB 916 passes in Oregon, it will set a precedent for labor nationwide.
But SB 916 has been tweaked in some ways to accommodate the needs of school districts. There is now a provision that districts “shall deduct from the employee’s future wages the amount of benefits received,” meaning school districts would not be required to pay employees more than their salaries. But for superintendents across Oregon, that provision has also raised implementation concerns. Many say their districts may not see reimbursements for unemployment benefits for months following a strike, creating cash flow issues.
Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis (R-Albany) read a letter from the superintendent of the Greater Albany School District, which recently saw its teachers go on strike.
“With this bill, the state is once again spending district funds that should go to kids,” Albany superintendent Andy Gardner wrote. “I can say that working with the unemployment department to unwind this would be an absolute mess that would take months, long after the strike is settled.” He also referenced the complexities of working with the department on another UI bill, SB 489, which has already sent some school districts scrambling.
But Democrats were, on the whole, convinced that the bill had gone through appropriate workshopping and that they’d minimized the potential damage to public employers. They also rejected a Republican-led minority amendment that would have made a number of changes to the bill text, including increasing the amount of time before striking workers qualified and sunsetting the law in 2035.
Some, like Rep. Daniel Nguyen (D-Lake Oswego), said they’d listened to the concerns of public employers but felt the backers of the bill had done their due diligence. Several pointed to statistics that indicate the bill will be used sparingly—it is not common for public employees to strike.
Rep. Farrah Chaichi (D-Beaverton) agreed the consequences of SB 916 were overstated. She said the only way employers could incur additional costs under the bill would be if they hired replacement employees. She contended teachers’ needs correlated with those of students.
“These actions are rare because educators and school staff do not want to strike. When they do strike, it is because conditions in our schools have become unsustainable,” Chaichi said. “They are the canaries in the coal mine, raising concerns like mold, rodent droppings, and unsafe temperatures that affect both student learning and staff well-being.”
In a statement, Oregon AFL-CIO Graham Trainor said the passage of SB 916 was a reflection of “prolonged advocacy” by union members statewide. A spokesperson for the Oregon Education Association did not immediately respond to WW’s request for comment.
“Oregon’s workers and their unions will continue to advocate for this bill until it is signed into law,” Trainor said in a statement. “Our mission to build a fair and just economy for all working people hinges on bold, progressive policies like SB 916B which will ensure that workers on strike do not have to be forced into poverty or be starved out to accept unsatisfactory offers at the bargaining table.”
The bill now heads back to the Senate as amended, and will face another vote on June 10. It last passed out of the Senate by a vote of 16-12, with two Republican state senators excused from the vote.