A contentious bill that would allow striking workers in Oregon to receive weekly unemployment checks saw a surprise defeat Tuesday when a key lawmaker pulled his support.

State Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, had voted in favor of Senate Bill 916 when it first came before his chamber in March. But after small changes in the House, the bill needed another approval from the Senate in order to advance to Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk.

It failed on a vote of 15-14. Along with Meek, three other Democrats voted alongside Republicans against the bill: Sens. Jeff Golden of Ashland, Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro and Courtney Neron Misslin of Wilsonville.

Only Meek, a sponsor of the bill, changed his position, however. Golden and Sollman had long opposed the proposal over concerns it would harm local governments and school districts. Neron Misslin was not in the Senate when SB 916 got its first vote. Her predecessor, former Sen. Aaron Woods, supported the bill earlier in session. Woods died in April.

The Senate rejection is a notable setback for labor interests, which are influential among Democrats and have made SB 916 a key priority. It creates new uncertainty for one of the most controversial bills lawmakers have taken up this year.

Meek could not immediately be reached for comment about his change of heart and didn’t speak on the Senate floor prior to the vote

Lawmakers from the House and Senate will now meet in a conference committee — a six-member group made up of four Democrats and two Republicans — in an attempt to find a compromise, but it’s not clear what that might look like.

SB 916 would make Oregon the first state in the country to grant both public and private employees weekly unemployment checks while on strike. New Jersey and New York have similar policies, and Washington lawmakers passed a bill this year granting payments to striking workers. But none of those states protects public employees’ right to strike like Oregon.

SB 916’s union backers and many workers have argued the bill is a matter of fairness. They say it’s too easy for employers to wait out striking workers, forcing them to accept a bad contract because they need a paycheck.

But the bill has generated strong pushback from businesses, local governments and school districts. They argue that the law would lead to longer and more frequent strikes, which could put increased pressure on the state’s $6.4 billion Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.

Public employers, which reimburse the state for any unemployment payments to former workers, warn the measure could blow holes in their budgets if strikes become more frequent. SB 916 contains language that seeks to avoid budget consequences by holding school districts harmless for benefits paid to their striking workers, but that was not enough to win support from school administrators.

Beyond those positions, one additional argument emerged late in the debate over SB 916: that Oregon should not pass a bill that was drastically different from the law in Washington.

A bill passed by Evergreen State lawmakers this year would cap unemployment benefits for striking workers at six weeks, and includes a sunset provision to automatically undo the law at the end of 2035.

Oregon’s bill caps benefits at 26 weeks — the same as other people receiving unemployment — and has no sunset.

House Republicans argued last week that Oregon should amend its bill to copy Washington’s approach.

“Why would we not adopt a common-sense change to at least try to align us with Washington on this policy?” state Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. “Do we want to make Oregon even less competitive?”

But House Democrats said at the time that a bolder policy was the right move for Oregon.

“We are primed more than any other state in the nation to pass a model version of this legislation,” said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, a chief sponsor of the bill. “We are called on to be leaders and, colleagues, I believe this is leading.”

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/10/unemployment-striking-workers-oregon/