Opinion: Why we need SB 916 – unemployment insurance for striking workers

Dacia Grayber

For The Oregonian/OregonLive

Grayber, a Democrat, is the state representative for District 28-Southwest Portland and East Beaverton in the Oregon House. She also chairs the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards

In a world where the vast chasm between corporate profit and worker wages is widening, Oregon has a legislative opportunity to help level a wildly unequal playing field.

Why do union workers come together to make the challenging decision to strike? To use their last leverage point to fight for wages, benefits and retirement security that allow them to survive in today’s economy. It’s about safe working conditions for the worker and the people they serve. And a strike is always predicated by a democratic vote of the membership, usually after months of negotiations with the employer.

That’s where

Senate Bill 916

, which seeks to extend unemployment benefits to workers who are on strike, comes in. SB 916 is premised on two bargaining elements:

First, there are large employers that are well-positioned to slow-walk bargaining because they know they can outlast their workers’ bank accounts. Workers that can’t pay rent, medical costs or put food on their table are more desperate and can effectively be forced into an unbalanced compromise. In the Northwest we saw these tactics to

cut or threaten to cut

health care and benefits in recent years with

Nabisco

Providence Health and Services

, and

Boeing

strikes.

Second, striking workers want to get back to work– the decision to strike is never taken lightly. Workers fight to make their jobs better, most often at great personal sacrifice. And SB 916 won’t replace wages, as unemployment benefits are capped.

This opportunity comes at a time when the national political landscape is openly putting workers at a disadvantage. President

Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of firing a member

of

the National Labor Relations Board

and income inequality is soaring. States must step up and be leaders while the federal government is

rolling back worker protections

When a best and final offer – one that is fair to both sides

–

is reached between the employer and the workers, we see movement quickly made and strikes conclude. This is the outcome we all want – and it’s to the benefit of workers, employers, and our economy at large to reduce incentives for procedural delay tactics in getting to resolution.

Eligibility under SB 916 is only for unionized employees that are not barred from striking, and who are engaging in a legal strike. Strike-barred public employees include police, fire fighters, and corrections. As such, most of Oregon’s workforce, businesses and public institutions will never be impacted by this bill. Legislators approved changes to protect Oregon’s robust unemployment insurance fund and worked in good faith to address opposition concerns without compromising the underlying premise of SB 916.

However, recognizing that much of the current discourse on this bill is about the potential impact on schools, let’s address some assumptions being made:

Since 2000, there have been only eight school strikes, representing less than 0.5% of all Oregon Education Association union bargaining contracts in the state. A majority of those strikes ended in under two weeks, meaning nearly all strikes would never be eligible for benefits under SB 916.

State law

mandates that public employees bargain for at least 210 days before a strike can occur, a timeline likely to increase

with

recent mediator layoffs at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

. Finally, judges can enjoin public sector strikes if they pose a public health or safety risk.

Let’s remember what the oft-mentioned Portland Public Schools strike was about. Yes, wages, but teachers were also fighting for students: the mold in classrooms, no air conditioning, rats, and more. School districts attempting to skirt accountability for fiscal missteps and lack of results by focusing their lobbying ire at this policy is deeply alarming at a time when we stand on the cusp of allocating historic (and badly needed) education dollars. Accountability is a two-way street.

Investing in our teachers is investing in our students. I’ve raised four kids through PPS, and they will all tell you it’s great teachers that make a great school. Getting to last, best, and final offers that are fair to all sides quicker in negotiations will prevent strikes and missed school days.

SB 916 does consider the possibility of (district-negotiated) backpay for teachers. To ensure that no worker makes more than 100% of their wage, the bill

calls for schools to

be reimbursed for any unemployment benefits if back pay is awarded. We listened to feedback and amended the policy to make this process streamlined and easier.

At the end of the day, contract resolution is at the heart of SB 916: to make sure Oregonians can work safely, serve our communities

,

and sustain their families. The mechanics of the bill have been changed to meet opponents’ concerns to the furthest extent they can be without compromising legislative intent, adding significant administrative burden to the Oregon Employment Department, or removing the right to strike from groups of workers altogether.

Supporting SB 916 is working to build a more leveled playing field, and that benefits students, teachers, and working families across our state.