March 4, 2025
What happened: The Senate Committee on Labor and Business held a second public hearing on SB 916 March 4. The bill has also had an informational hearing. OBI Executive Vice President and General Counsel Paloma Sparks testified for the second time in opposition to the bill, which would allow striking workers to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
The problem with SB 916: The unemployment insurance system was designed to provide benefits for people who lose work involuntarily. It was not designed to provide benefits for people, like striking workers, who leave jobs voluntarily. SB 916 would provide an incentive for workers to increase the length of strikes, ramping up economic pain on the very employers who pay all unemployment taxes. As Paloma noted, passing SB 916 would further erode the business climate in Oregon, which already is ranked one of the least business-friendly states in the nation. Oregon is also in the midst of what the state economist has called a manufacturing recession.
Why it matters: Oregon needs continued business investment to generate jobs and tax revenue. Passing SB 916 would give businesses another reason to invest in other states, further eroding Oregon’s competitiveness. Perhaps that’s why California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill giving unemployment benefits to striking workers in 2023, why Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed a bill providing aid to striking workers one year later, and why the Seattle Times last year urged legislators not to give unemployment benefits to striking workers, which, the paper argued, would “undermine this longstanding social safety net.”
Learn more: Watch Paloma’s testimony by clicking on the video the right and follow the link below it to read her submitted testimony. To review dozens of proposals that would improve Oregon’s competitiveness, check out OBI’s Oregon Competitiveness Agenda here.