Oregon workers could soon claim strike payments under bill passed by House
Oregon could soon become the first state in the nation to extend unemployment benefits to striking workers.
House lawmakers passed Senate Bill 916 Wednesday in a 33-23 vote along party lines with one dissenting Democrat, a decision that followed an hours-long debate about the bill's impact on schools, health care, and private businesses. The bill already cleared the Senate in May in a 16-12 vote, but will need to go back to that chamber before the month's end for a re-vote to clear further amendments.
The legislation would allow striking workers — including most public employees — to collect unemployment benefits after their first two weeks of striking and up until the eight week of a strike, pending the financial stability of the state's unemployment fund. Several other states, including Washington, New Jersey, and New York, extend unemployment benefits and payments to striking private sector workers, but not to public employees.
If unemployment funding is available, striking workers could collect benefits for up to 26 weeks. Payments range from $196 to a maximum of $836 weekly, according to a 2024 policy from the Oregon Employment Department.
After the House voted down a scaled-back proposal by Republicans Wednesday morning, lawmakers debated the extent to which Senate Bill 916 would lengthen or shorten strikes, and the potential strain it could impose on schools and private business.
'SB 916 won't encourage strikes — it will shorten them,' state Rep. Travis Nelson, D-Portland, wrote in an emailed statement Wednesday. 'It will bring employers to the table faster, and let workers stand up without having to worry that their families will starve should they choose to exercise their right to strike. Fundamentally, this legislation is about dignity and fairness for workers.'
Republicans, led by state Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, sought to derail the proposal with their own measure that also would've capped benefits to six weeks of payments after the first two weeks of a strike.
'We can have the conversation about making sure that employees are paid well and they are protected and their voices heard,' Elmer said. 'This bill isn't the way — this is too much and too far.'
Prior to the vote, opposition to the measure was piling up in testimony from school board leaders and business groups concerned the bill could allow strikes to drag on and put a wrench in day-to-day operations.
Leaders of teacher unions and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, a statewide coalition of unions that represents over 300,000 workers, have testified in support of the bill, as have nurses, teachers and state workers.
'Regardless of income level or industry, Oregon workers all want the same things — to work hard, support themselves, and build a better life,' the Oregon AFL-CIO said in a social media post prior to the vote. 'Senate Bill 916 is an opportunity for our state to support working class Oregonians by strengthening their right to strike through expanding unemployment benefit access.'
The Oregon Employment Department told the Legislature in April that the bill wouldn't result in any changes to unemployment taxes paid by employers.
The bill was amended in the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards in May to allow school districts to deduct the cost of benefits from backpay some teachers receive after a strike has ended, under union contracts.
Multiple Democrats reiterated their argument following the vote that the bill would not raise costs for businesses and schools.
'I also firmly believe that this policy will help our businesses, education and healthcare communities by bringing these strikes to a close sooner and with greater certainty,' said state Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, in closing the discussion on the House floor.
If the bill clears its revote in the Senate, it will head to Gov. Tina Kotek's desk for final consideration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Japan's shaky government loses upper house control
Japan's ruling coalition has lost control of the upper house in an election, further weakening Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's grip on power even as he vowed to remain party leader, citing a looming tariff deadline with the United States. While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba's administration will fall, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more powerful lower house in October. Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito returned 47 seats, short of the 50 seats it needed to ensure a majority in the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats were up for grabs. That comes on top of its worst showing in 15 years in October's lower house election, a vote that has left Ishiba's administration vulnerable to no-confidence motions and calls from within his own party for leadership change. Speaking late on Sunday evening after exit polls closed, Ishiba told NHK he "solemnly" accepted the "harsh result". "We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States ... we must never ruin these negotiations. It is only natural to devote our complete dedication and energy to realising our national interests," he later told TV Tokyo. Asked whether he intended to stay on as premier, he said, "that's right". Japan, the world's fourth-largest economy, faces a deadline of August 1 to strike a trade deal with the United States or face punishing tariffs in its largest export market. The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party finished second with 22 seats. Meanwhile, the far-right Sanseito party announced its arrival in mainstream politics, adding 14 seats to one elected previously. Launched on YouTube a few years ago, the populist party found wider appeal with its "Japanese First" campaign and warnings about a "silent invasion" of foreigners. Opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending struck a chord with voters, as rising consumer prices - particularly a jump in the cost of rice - have sowed frustration at the government's response. The LDP has been urging fiscal restraint, with one eye on a very jittery government bond market, as investors worry about Japan's ability to refinance the world's largest debt pile. Any concessions the LDP must now strike with opposition parties to pass policy will only further elevate those nerves, analysts say. "The ruling party will have to compromise in order to gain the co-operation of the opposition, and the budget will continue to expand," said Yu Uchiyama, a politics professor at the University of Tokyo. "Overseas investors' evaluation of the Japan economy will also be quite harsh."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 Blue States Where Energy Costs Could Go Up the Most Under Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill'
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB), signed into law on July 4, contains policies that will increase oil and gas leasing and repeal clean energy tax credits. This will result in higher energy costs — costs that will be passed on to consumers. Wholesale electricity prices are expected to increase 25% by 2030 and 74% by 2035. Electricity rates paid by consumers are expected to increase between 9%-18% and household energy costs are anticipated to go up $170 annually by 2035. Find Out: Read Next: Many Republican-led states are expected to bear the brunt of higher energy costs primarily because, unlike some Democrat-led states, they generally don't have their own policies to develop renewable energy. But a few blue states should brace for impact. A new analysis by the Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, LLC found that four majority Democrat states will be among the 20 to see the biggest annual increases to household energy costs by 2035. 4. Colorado Annual energy cost increase per household by 2035: +$310 Learn More: 3. California Annual energy cost increase per household by 2035: +$320 2. Maryland Annual energy cost increase per household by 2035: +$350 1. Minnesota Annual energy cost increase per household by 2035: +$410 More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on 4 Blue States Where Energy Costs Could Go Up the Most Under Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill'


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Republicans and Democrats call for more information on Epstein case
Trump and many of his allies vowed to release a trove of files in the case, including a so-called 'client list' that many involved in the case insist never existed. But the release of some documents earlier this year offered no new revelations. And the Justice Department said this month that it had closed the case and would not release more documents, concluding that there was no client list. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up One of Epstein's former lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, said in an interview on 'Fox News Sunday' that the grand jury testimony was unlikely to contain the information that has most interested Trump's supporters. Advertisement Trump has encouraged his base to move on. But the backlash seemed to be on his mind Sunday morning, when he accused 'Radical Left Democrats' of exposing the 'Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' Burchett also took up Trump's argument Sunday, saying that Democrats had the chance to release the materials when former president Joe Biden was in office. Advertisement At the same time, Burchett is one of 10 Republicans who have signed on to an effort to force a vote on whether the administration should release the files. The procedural maneuver would require a majority of House members, and Burchett said he was not sure if it would succeed. 'I have no earthly idea,' he said on CNN. 'You know this town buries secrets.' Democrats in Congress have seized on the divide that has opened up between Trump and his supporters, trying to force votes on measures that call for the release of Epstein-related files and pressing for hearings. They have rejected Trump's efforts to redirect the blame to them. 'The president blaming Democrats for this disaster, Jake, is like that CEO that got caught on camera blaming Coldplay,' said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, to CNN's Jake Tapper, referring to a viral video that showed the married CEO of a tech company with his arms around a woman who is not his wife. Klobuchar, instead blamed the public's clamoring for the files on right-wing politicians, including Trump, who she said had sown distrust in federal prosecutors over the case. 'People have a reason that they want to know what's in there,' Klobuchar said. 'They believe the president when he said there's stuff in there that people should see.' Several former federal prosecutors told the Associated Press that the Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts in the prosecutions of Epstein and his former girlfriend, imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, is unlikely to produce much, if anything, to satisfy the public's appetite for new revelations about the financier's crimes. Advertisement Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant US attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request 'a distraction.' 'The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here and it really is nothing,' Krissoff told the Associated Press in a weekend interview. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief. Naftalis said Southern District prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but 'it's not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein.' 'People want the entire file from however long. That's just not what this is,' he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages. 'It's not going to be much,' Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages 'because the Southern District of New York's practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury.' 'They basically spoon feed the indictment to the grand jury. That's what we're going to see,' she said. 'I just think it's not going to be that interesting. ... I don't think it's going to be anything new.' This article originally appeared in