logo
Oregon Bill Providing Unemployment Pay for Striking Workers Signed Into Law by Governor

Oregon Bill Providing Unemployment Pay for Striking Workers Signed Into Law by Governor

Al Arabiya25-06-2025
Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek on Tuesday signed into law a bill that provides unemployment benefits to striking workers, following neighboring Washington state in adopting measures spurred by recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses, and teachers in the Pacific Northwest.
Oregon's measure makes it the first state to provide pay for picketing public employees–who aren't allowed to strike in most states, let alone receive benefits for it. It makes striking workers eligible to collect unemployment benefits after two weeks, with benefits capped at 10 weeks. Only three other states–New York, New Jersey, and most recently, Washington state–give striking workers unemployment benefits. Washington's bill, which passed in April, pays striking private-sector workers for up to six weeks, starting after at least two weeks on the line. Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Monday vetoed a bill that would provide financial help for striking workers, after vetoing a similar measure last year.
The final passage for Oregon's bill proved tumultuous. It first passed the state Senate in March and then passed the state House earlier this month. But a majority of senators did not concur with amendments added by the House, which sent the measure to a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills. It ultimately received final approval following a compromise on the 10-week benefits cap.
The bill sparked debate among lawmakers as well as constituents, with over 1,000 letters of written testimony submitted. Supporters said it would level the playing field between workers and wealthy corporations that can wait until union strike funds run out to pressure employees under financial distress to accept deals. Opponents said it could incentivize strikes and hurt employers, particularly public employers such as school districts. Private employers pay into the state's unemployment insurance trust fund through a payroll tax, but many public employers do not, meaning they would have to reimburse the fund for any payments made to their workers.
In response to those concerns, the bill requires school districts to deduct the benefits received by an employee from their future wages. Some argued it wouldn't cost public employers more than what they have already budgeted for salaries, as workers aren't paid when they are on strike. Also, those receiving unemployment benefits get at most sixty-five percent of their weekly pay, and benefit amounts are capped, according to documents presented to lawmakers by employment department officials.
Oregon has seen two large strikes in recent years: Thousands of nurses and dozens of doctors at Providence's eight Oregon hospitals were on strike for six weeks earlier this year, while a 2023 walkout of Portland Public Schools teachers shuttered schools for over three weeks in the state's largest district.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump administration pulls $4b in federal funding for California's bullet train project
Trump administration pulls $4b in federal funding for California's bullet train project

Al Arabiya

time21 minutes ago

  • Al Arabiya

Trump administration pulls $4b in federal funding for California's bullet train project

The Trump administration revoked federal funding for California's high-speed rail project on Wednesday, intensifying uncertainty about how the state will make good on its long-delayed promise of building a bullet train to shuttle riders between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The US Transportation Department announced it was pulling back $4 billion in funding for the project weeks after signaling it would do so. Overall, a little less than a quarter of the project's funding has come from the federal government. The rest has come from the state, mainly through a voter-approved bond and money from its cap-and-trade program. President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy both have slammed the project as a 'train to nowhere.' 'The Railroad we were promised still does not exist and never will,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED.' The loss marks the latest blow to California by the Trump administration, which has blocked a first-in-the-nation rule to phase out the sale of new gas-powered cars, launched investigations into university admission policies, and threatened to pull funding over transgender girls being allowed to compete in girls sports. It also comes as rail project leaders are seeking private investment to help pay for its estimated price tag of more than $100 billion. Voters first approved the project in 2008, and it was supposed to be operating this decade, but cost estimates have consistently grown, and its timeline pushed back. State officials are now focused on building a 119-mile (192-kilometer) stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced that is set to be operating by 2033. The California High Speed Rail Authority is slated to release a report this summer to state lawmakers with an updated funding plan and timeline for the project. Authority officials wrote in a letter earlier this month that the Trump administration made up its mind about revoking funding before thoroughly reviewing the project. They noted that more than 50 structures have already been built, including underpasses, viaducts, and bridges to separate the rail line from roadways for safety. 'Canceling these grants without cause isn't just wrong – it's illegal,' authority CEO Ian Choudri said in a statement Wednesday. 'These are legally binding agreements, and the Authority has met every obligation as confirmed by repeated federal reviews as recently as February 2025.' The authority has asked potential private investors to express their interest by the end of the month. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state will keep all options on the table to fight the revocation of federal funds. 'Trump wants to hand China the future and abandon the Central Valley. We won't let him,' he said in a statement. 'The state has no viable plan to complete even the Central Valley segment,' said Drew Feeley, acting administrator of the transportation department's Federal Railroad Administration, in a report released last month. He called the project a 'story of broken promises and a waste of taxpayer dollars.' California Democrats also have criticized project spending. Democratic Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said at a budget hearing earlier this year that her constituents overwhelmingly believe high-speed rail spending has been irresponsible. Newsom plans to extend the state's cap-and-trade program, a key funding source for the project which is set to expire at the end of 2030, through 2045. The program sets a declining limit on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions large emitters can release. Those polluters can buy allowances from the state needed to pollute, and about 45 percent of that money goes into what's known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, according to the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, a group of experts that reviews the program. The fund helps pay for climate and transportation projects including high-speed rail. The bullet train project receives 25 percent of the money from the fund, which ends up being a little less or a little more than $1 billion annually depending on the year. Newsom in May proposed guaranteeing $1 billion a year for the project from the fund, but lawmakers have not agreed to that.

Trump tries to blame others as tensions rise around handling of Epstein case
Trump tries to blame others as tensions rise around handling of Epstein case

Arab News

timean hour ago

  • Arab News

Trump tries to blame others as tensions rise around handling of Epstein case

President Donald Trump is countering criticism of the Justice Department's failure to release much-hyped records around the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, trying to place blame on former government officials. On Tuesday, he accused former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as former FBI Director James Comey, of making up such documents. 'I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden ... ,' Trump told members of the press at the White House before departing for an event in Pennsylvania. The president on Wednesday posted on Truth Social blaming Democrats in general for a 'new SCAM' that 'we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' Epstein was arrested in 2019 and found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month later. Investigators concluded that he killed himself. Trump presented no evidence in claiming that Democrats and Comey tampered with documents related to Epstein's case. Comey was fired in 2017, two years before Epstein's arrest, and has not returned to the government since. Obama was long gone from the White House by the time of Epstein's death. During Biden's presidency, the Justice Department put on trial Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and secured a conviction against her, but there is zero indication that he or anyone from the White House had anything at any point to do with that case. Comey was a Republican for most of his adult life, but said in 2016 that he was that he was no longer registered with the party. Trump suggested last year that he was considering releasing information about the Epstein case if he won a second term. In February, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations. Then, earlier this month, it acknowledged that a months-long review of additional evidence in the government's possession had not revealed a list of clients and said no more files related to the case — other than a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself — would be made public. The announcement led to outcry from Trump supporters. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared to intimate in a Fox News interview in February that a client list was 'sitting on my desk' to be reviewed for release. She said last week that she was referring to the Epstein case file generally, as opposed to an actual client list. Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino then had a contentious conversation at the White House as backlash grew to the Justice Department's decision to withhold records. Trump, members of his administration and conservative influencers have spread unsubstantiated claims surrounding Epstein for years. Conspiracy theories about Epstein's death are a popular trope in right-wing spheres, playing on Trump's repeated promises to reveal and dismantle the 'deep state' — a supposed secret network of powerful people manipulating government decisions behind the scenes. Trump's rivals have recently taken advantage of right-wing fissures over Epstein. Several Democratic lawmakers are calling for the release of all Epstein files and suggesting Trump could be resisting because he or someone close to him is featured in them.

Trial Opens against Meta CEO Zuckerberg and Other Leaders over Facebook Privacy Violations
Trial Opens against Meta CEO Zuckerberg and Other Leaders over Facebook Privacy Violations

Asharq Al-Awsat

time3 hours ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

Trial Opens against Meta CEO Zuckerberg and Other Leaders over Facebook Privacy Violations

An $8 billion class action investors' lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leaders — current and former — began Wednesday, with claims stemming from the 2018 privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm. Investors allege in their lawsuit that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users' personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump's successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016. Shareholders say Facebook officials repeatedly and continually violated a 2012 consent order with the Federal Trade Commission under which Facebook agreed to stop collecting and sharing personal data on platform users and friends without their consent. Facebook later sold user data to commercial partners in direct violation of the consent order and removed disclosures from privacy settings that were required under consent order, the lawsuit alleges. The fallout led to Facebook agreeing to pay a $5.1 billion penalty to settle FTC charges. The social media giant also faced significant fines in Europe and reached a $725 million privacy settlement with users. Now shareholders want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. The first trial witness, privacy expert Neil Richards, testified Monday morning for the shareholders. 'Facebook's privacy disclosures were misleading,' said Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School. In later testimony, Jeffrey Zients, who served on Facebook's board from 2018 to 2020, testified that consumer privacy and user data were priorities for both management and the board. Nonetheless, he supported settling with the FTC as it investigated potential violations of the 2012 consent order, so the company could move forward. 'It was difficult because this was a lot of money, but I think it was better than the alternative,' Zients said. Asked if the board considered making its founder a party to the settlement, he said Zuckerberg was 'essential' to running the company. And, Zients, who served in both the Obama and Biden administrations, said, 'there was no indication that he had done anything wrong.' The case is expected to run through late next week and include testimony from both Zuckerberg and former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. Other witnesses expected in Delaware Chancery Court, where Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is incorporated, include board member Marc Andreessen and former board member Peter Thiel. The judge is not expected to rule for several months. Meta had hoped the Supreme Court would dismiss the case. Justices heard arguments in November before deciding they should not have taken it up. The high court dismissed the company's appeal, leaving in place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store