OSBA advocacy work extends beyond the bills that move through the education committees. Sometimes the most contentious bills with the heaviest district impacts don’t have the words school or education anywhere in them.
In addition to educating children, school districts and their boards are employers, public contractors, locally elected government bodies, facilities managers and much more. As we review bills that address things entirely outside education, our north star always remains: How does this policy impact students and our ability to direct district resources where they are most needed — the classroom?
Senate Bill 916, one of the hottest topics this session, is a prime example. SB 916 would allow striking workers to receive unemployment insurance for weeks they are on strike. Folks are generally of two minds on this issue. One side believes that this will spur employers to settle contracts more quickly; the other has concerns that this will lead to employees staying out on strike longer.
At OSBA, our concerns are twofold: If this does lead to more common or longer strikes, that would impact student instructional time, and any additional cost to districts has to come from somewhere else in schools’ budgets.
We have some concern that schools would have to pay for employees’ strike time and then pay them again for that time because of contract days.
The bill’s proponents, both legislators and labor unions, say it is not their intention for employees to receive extra pay by claiming unemployment insurance. As with many well-intended bills, the devil really is in the details.
To avoid any over-compensation following a strike, either the Oregon Employment Department would need to be responsible for collecting any overage payments and crediting those back to the district or school districts would need to receive information specific to each individual employee so that pay could be adjusted accordingly.
We have many questions for the Employment Department about how, exactly, either of these options might work and how those options align with current policies and statutes. For example, current statute prohibits employers from reducing backpay due to employees’ claiming unemployment insurance. No matter which way it’s handled, this has a district cost of increased staff time.
To ensure this proposal would not result in employees being paid twice — through unemployment insurance plus their normal salary as negotiated in strike settlements — we need some assurances about how this would be implemented. Other changes we are requesting include:
- Having an extended waiting period specifically for workers’ claiming unemployment insurance while out on strike. The standard waiting period for folks who are laid off is one week. We would like a three-week period for unemployment insurance due to a strike as we don’t want to tip the scales by creating a potential incentive for folks to strike sooner or for longer than they might otherwise.
- Delaying the effective date until the Employment Department has the capacity to fully implement.
- Ensuring that this would only apply to bargaining that begins after the law’s effective date, so we are not changing the rules of the game for folks who are already mid-negotiation.
- Finally, to make the described intent clear in the bill, we would like to see language that speaks to the process for ensuring employees don’t receive more by going out on strike than they otherwise would be entitled to.
SB 916 has had two public hearings and one informational hearing that have been well attended. We’ve been told the intention is to hold a third public hearing.
We remain concerned about the impact this bill could have on students given the length of the two most recent education strikes. We are working to elevate these concerns with legislators and labor alike.
– Stacy Michaelson
OSBA Director of Government Relations and Communications
