Oregon lawmakers scale back proposal for unemployment strike payments amid blowback
A particularly controversial measure that would give unemployment benefits to public and private Oregon workers during labor strikes survived a key Wednesday hearing after lawmakers agreed to cut the length of time in which workers on strike could cash checks by more than half.
Senate Bill 916 would have limited striking workers to receiving benefits for 26 weeks, in line with the current caps on unemployment checks for Oregonians. But after the Senate rejected an amended version of the bill on Tuesday, a bicameral conference committee voted Wednesday to set a new cutoff at 10 weeks after a two-week waiting period. Committee members voted along party lines, with the sole Republican present voting against the amendments.
'I do feel like this is a massive compromise,' said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, the bill's lead author. 'It's not something I'm entirely thrilled with.'
The measure would be a first-in-the-nation move by Oregon, establishing a right to strike for public and private employees while ensuring them the ability to apply for unemployment benefits. Aside from traditionally strike-exempt public employees such as firefighters and police, workers such as nurses and teachers could claim benefits after two weeks of striking.
The bill has been among this session's most controversial measures, laying bare deep divisions over how best to use the state's $6.4 billion unemployment insurance fund. The changes come after support for a Democrat-led bill collapsed in a concurring Senate vote on Tuesday amid concerns from Republicans and a key dissenting Democrat. It had already drawn opposition from school board leaders who help negotiate teacher strikes, business groups, and local government leaders who contribute to the state's unemployment fund.
'We have a healthy fund today due in no small part because all the agreements in the years have been honored,' committee member Sen. Daniel Bonham, R- The Dalles, told his colleagues before voting against the amended bill. 'It is a healthy enough fund that I don't know that this will be a massive draw on it, but again the kids will lose if teachers are incentivized to strike.'
House Democrats got the bill over the finish line in their chamber last week, arguing that the benefits would be used sparingly and not as a tool to prolong strikes, but to shorten them. A change made in a House committee would cap benefits to eight weeks if the state's unemployment fund is at risk, and lawmakers also included an amendment that mandates deductions in backpay for benefits claimed by teachers during strikes.
Grayber on Tuesday repeated a promise she has made to continue monitoring the bill's implementation if it were to pass, but also signaled that she hoped to move past concerns that the bill would promote misuse of the unemployment system or dramatically hamper school life and public facilities.
She said she's been 'guided by the math' behind the bill from the beginning, a subtle nod to the estimates from the state's employment department that the bill would not change existing tax structures for businesses and government agencies paying into the state's unemployment funding.
'I have heard the opposition,' she said. 'I very much look forward to moving past what feels like a worst-case scenario focus that we've maintained for several weeks now.'
Oregonians who have lost a job can currently apply for unemployment weekly checks ranging from $196 to $836. The bill would allow benefits to kick in immediately if workers are locked out of facilities by their employer during negotiations.
Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, is a sponsor of the legislation, but withdrew his support when it came up short in a 15-14 Senate vote on Tuesday. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to comment on whether he supported the proposed changes. He referred to another attempt at a transportation and infrastructure funding bill that the Legislature has taken up in the final weeks of the session: 'If there's time to pass a transportation package, there's time to get this right,' he said.
The new amendment pushes the bill closer to a similar law passed in Washington that caps benefits at six weeks, but which doesn't go so far as to protect public employees like Oregon's proposed legislation. New Jersey and New York have also passed laws in recent years to provide unemployment benefits to striking private sector workers, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar effort in 2023 over fiscal concerns.
Another bill extending benefits to striking workers in Connecticut is currently sitting on Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, but he is expected to veto it. The bill passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote. Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, was excused.
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


Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Lake County officials discuss the challenges of public transportation during townhall meeting
Hours before the 104th Illinois General Assembly adjourned its initial session May 31 by law, the State Senate voted 32-22 for legislation creating the Northern Illinois Transit Authority (NITA) to help avoid a $771 million fiscal cliff facing public transportation in northeastern Illinois. With little time remaining in the session, the Illinois House of Representatives was unable to consider the Senate-amended version of the bill, postponing a final vote and elimination of the fiscal cliff until the legislature's veto session in October. Along with helping public transportation keep running in Chicagoland at its current level without reducing service or cutting jobs, the NITA bill provides for a variety of improvements to meet the needs of at least the next two decades. When the coronavirus pandemic shuttered much of the economy in March 2020, state Sen. Adriane Johnson, D-Buffalo Grove, said federal funding helped offset the nosedive in revenue to public transportation. When the money runs out at the end of the year, Johnson said Metra, Pace, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) will be $771 million short of what they need to operate, leading to decreased service and jobs. State Sen. Ram Vallivalam, D-Chicago, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, said keeping public transportation as it is is insufficient for the needs. As he and others went to work on the bill, it became a $1.5 billion package taking the public transit two decades into the future. 'We have a robust public transportation system that moves one million people every day,' Vallivalam said. 'Every dollar we spend on public transportation brings $13 to the local economy. This is a huge undertaking. This is something we have to do.' 'It has to be accessible, equitable, safe, reliable, and affordable,' added Johnson. Johnson, Vallivalam, state Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, D-Libertyville, and Lake County Board Chair Sandy Hart, D-Lake Bluff, presented their ideas on the future of public transportation in the Chicago area at a town hall on Monday in Vernon Hills to gather ideas and urge support. With $200 million earmarked for downstate Illinois, Vallivalam said the rest of the money will be spent on public transportation in Chicago, suburban Cook County, and collar counties Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane, and Will counties. Governance of NITA will consist of a 20-person board with five people from collar counties, five from suburban Cook County, five from Chicago, and five from the state. Vallivalam said it is structured to avoid dominance of any area. The current organizations will remain. Part of the funding package includes a $1.50 home delivery fee for goods purchased online and delivered to an individual's home. Vallivalam said legislation must include revenue sources, but he and his colleagues are open to suggestions from state House members. Finding ways to better coordinate bus and train schedules in Lake County is important. Vallivalam said waiting a long time is not helpful to people getting to and from work, especially when traveling between distant suburbs and the city. 'We don't want the last Pace bus to arrive at the Metra station after the last train has left for Chicago,' Vallivalam said. Some things that changed during the pandemic have remained because of the way people work. Vallivalam said Metra ridership has returned midweek but not on Mondays and Fridays. Working remotely on Mondays and Fridays is becoming the norm for some. Not everyone can use an automobile to travel where they need or want to go. Johnson said public transportation is an economic necessity for some, and they need to be accommodated by public transit. All four public officials urged people at the town hall to talk to their state representative and let them know their ideas about public transportation. When they return to Springfield, they want to be in a position to send the bill to Gov. J.B. Pritzker's desk. Vallivalam said he is confident. 'I do believe we're 99% there,' Vallivalam said. 'We have done the heavy negotiating. You need to inform your (state representatives) now because the opponents of this bill are doing that. We don't want to go off the cliff.'

USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular
President Donald Trump's approval ratings nationally are in the red, but for about half of the states, more people approve of his job peformance. State legislatures could determine Trump's political future. Texas' push to redraw its Congressional map to add more Republican seats has dragged the states into a bit of a standoff, as heavy hitter Democratic states threaten to do the same if Texas moves forward. That's because Democrats are looking to take back control of the U.S. House in the midterm elections, and doing so would subvert Trump's efforts for his last two years in office. While Trump's approval rating nationally remains historcially low, a look at state-by-state survey results show a more complicated picture. Here is what we know: More: Did Trump remove the Rose Garden? He has pushed these White House renovations Trump has positive approval rating in 27 states Trump's approval rating is above water in 27 states. That is according to an Aug. 12 update from Morning Consult, which gathers polls over the course of three months to get a look at state-level data among registered voters. The number of states is unchanged from July's update. Trump is most popular by Morning Consult in Wyoming, where 66% of voters approve of his job performance, and least popular in Vermont, where 64% disapprove of his job performance. But his approval is net negative in two states with gubernatorial races this fall: New Jersey and Virginia, according to Morning Consult. In Texas, 53% of voters approve of Trump's performance while 44% disapprove. In California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to counter changes in Texas' redistricting, 41% approve of Trump's job peformance while 56% disapprove. California is Trump's seventh worst rating among the states, according to Morning Consult. What is Trump's approval overall? RealClearPolitics Poll Average shows Trump's approval rating was becoming more negative throughout the first few weeks of July before buoying toward the end of the month. Aggregated polls by the New York Times show a similar trend. As of Jan. 27, Trump received a +6.2 percentage point approval rating, but as of March 13, it flipped to slightly negative, the RealClearPolitics graphics show. The approval rating reached its most negative on April 29 at -7.2 percentage points, which fell around Trump's 100-day mark. It came close to that low again on July 22 and 23 at -7.1 percentage points, as the controversy over Epstein carried into its third week. His average approval rating margin as of Aug. 12, according to RealClearPolitics, is -5.4 percentage points. The approval margin according to the New York Times aggregator on Aug. 12 is -8 percentage points. How does Trump's approval rating compare to previous presidents? A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in July of his first years in office − both as the 45th and 47th presidents − are lower than any other modern president at the same time in their administrations. In a Gallup poll conducted from July 7-21, 37% approved of Trump's job performance. Here is how that compares to other presidents in July of their first year of their term, according to Gallup: Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @


Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Arizona school funding ruled unconstitutional by state judge
Arizona's system for funding K-12 facilities violates the state constitution because it doesn't provide for some school districts' minimum needs, a judge said Wednesday in what could be a landmark ruling. Why it matters: If the ruling withstands a planned appeal, the Arizona Legislature will have to provide substantial new funding for school facilities and other capital needs at some point in the future. The big picture: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dewain Fox ruled in a major lawsuit that the funding system violates the Arizona Constitution's requirement that the state establish "a general and uniform public school system." Yes, but: The ruling isn't likely to be the final word. Senate President Warren Petersen, who intervened as a defendant, will appeal, a Senate spokesperson told Axios. Attorney Danny Adelman of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, who led the case for the plaintiffs, said it'll likely be several years before the matter is fully resolved. Flashback: In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Roosevelt vs. Bishop that Arizona's system for funding capital needs — including buildings, buses, technology and books — violated the state constitution's requirement that there be a "general and uniform" school system. Because districts relied on taxes based on property value, the system left districts in less wealthy areas short on funding. To comply with that ruling, the Legislature created the Students FIRST program, which added building renewal grants and funding for new school construction and for districts that exhausted other resources. A group of school districts and education organizations sued the state in 2017, arguing that it hadn't met its obligations from the Roosevelt vs. Bishop ruling. The case finally went to trial in May 2024. Zoom in: On paper, Students FIRST rectified the funding disparities, Fox wrote in his ruling. But in reality, the state hasn't provided sufficient funding for school facilities. Districts can obtain additional funding through bonds and budget overrides, but those are at voters' whims. As a result, many schools are forced to operate with deficient facilities for months or years while they await funding. Adelman told Axios that districts have lost between $6 billion and $7 billion over the past 25 years or so. Between the lines: While disparities in districts' ability to raise money through voter-approved bonds and overrides aren't unconstitutional, inadequate funding leaves some unable to meet their needs without them. "In short, Arizona has returned to a system that forces districts to rely largely on local property taxation to fund their capital needs, and as such, property value is crucial to a district's ability to fund its schools," Fox wrote, comparing it to the system that the Arizona Supreme Court struck down in the original Roosevelt case.