Feb. 11, 2025
What happened: On Feb. 11, OBI Executive Vice President and General Counsel Paloma Sparks testified in opposition to SB 916 before the Senate Committee on Labor and Business. The public hearing was a continuation of a Feb. 6 hearing on the bill. Click the video to the right to watch her testimony and follow the link below it to read her written testimony.
The problem with SB 916: The bill would make unemployment insurance benefits available to striking workers. Doing so would violate the intent of the unemployment insurance system, which is to support people who lose work through no fault of their own. Collective bargaining, as Sparks explained to the committee, involves compromise by workers and employers in pursuit of a mutually acceptable agreement. A strike is a way for employees to gain an advantage in the process. Because employers pay all unemployment taxes in Oregon, SB 916 would force employers to subsidize strikes meant to inflict pain upon them. The bill would create an incentive for workers to go on strike and to remain on strike for long periods.
Why this matters: By many measures, Oregon’s business climate has eroded in recent years. And according to CNBC’s latest America’s Top States for Business ranking, only two states are less business-friendly than Oregon. By stacking the deck against employers – and even forcing them to pay unemployment to striking workers – SB 916 would erode the state’s business climate even more. Employers would be further incentivized to invest in other states, depriving Oregonians of jobs and state and local governments of tax revenue.