N-R editorial: Jobless benefits for strikers violates standard of fairness

Extending unemployment benefits to striking workers in both the public and private sectors — a national first the Oregon Legislature now seems poised to sign off on — is a bridge too far for us.

We are joined in that by cities, counties, schools and other units of local government; by the owners and operators of a wide range of private businesses, large and small; by every Republican in both the House and Senate, along with a smattering of Democrats; by the state’s largest newspaper; and, we strongly suspect, by a broad cross-section of beleaguered Oregon taxpayers.

Simply joining New York, New Jersey and Washington in making benefits available to striking private sector workers — a radical departure from the underlying rationale for unemployment insurance in its own right — smacks of formal government intervention on the side of labor. Supporters call it leveling the playing field, but it looks more like further ratcheting up a longstanding tilt labor’s way, when judged against where other states have come down.

Oregon’s business climate already has one of the worst reputations in the country, if not the worst. It is known for heavy regulation, burdensome taxation, glacial approval processes and rampant nimbyism.

Sometimes it seems we are bent on extending Gov. Tom McCall’s famous “visit but don’t stay” admonition to any semblance of new business endeavor. Going so far as to use public funds to help public employees get a bigger cut of the public pie threatens to take it to a new level.

The vehicle is Senate Bill 916, which squeaked through a Democratically controlled Senate by the narrowest of counts — 16 to 14 — in March. The House passed it 33-23 last week, but with amendments requiring Senate approval.

Four Democratic senators — Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro, Jeff Golden of Ashland, Mark Meek of Gladstone and Courtney Neron Misslin of Wilsonville — displayed the courage of their convictions in voting no. That sends the bill to a conference committee eyeing reduction of striker benefits from 26 weeks to 12 in order to muster more support — a token compromise we find utterly unacceptable.

Oregon pays eligible workers $196 to $836 a week for 26 weeks to see them through periods of unemployment. That amounts to six months or half a year, which would be a torturously long time to be subsidizing a teacher strike, say, with public money.

Private employers are assessed quarterly payments to keep the fund solvent. Public employers are exempt from that requirement, as are both private and public employees.

Washington recently enacted a measure extending unemployment benefits to striking private sector employees, but capping it at six weeks and excluding public employees. Limiting the damage to the level Washington has inflicted would be a lot more palatable to us, as the committee explores grounds for a compromise here.

As it stands, the bill would extend benefits to all striking employees for a full six-month run. Republican Rep. Lucetta Elmer of McMinnville led an effort to limit benefits to six weeks, matching Washington, but she carried only one Democrat — Rep. John Lively of Springfield.

That prompted this exchange on the House floor between Elmer and Democratic Rep. Dacia Grayber of Portland:

Elmer: “Why would we not adopt a common-sense change to at least try to align us with Washington on this policy? Do we want to make Oregon even less competitive?”

Grayber: “We are primed more than any other state in the nation to pass a model version of this legislation. We are called on to be leaders, and colleagues, I believe this is leading.”

So there you have it. Called on to lead.

The House did make one concession, limiting the payout to eight weeks in the event the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund falls below a certain threshold. We interpret that to mean, “If the public money runs out.”

Oregon Business & Industry stated its objection this way: “Oregon’s unemployment insurance system was designed to support people who lose work involuntarily. Using taxes paid by employers for this purpose to instead subsidize voluntary work stoppages will harm Oregon’s businesses and further erode the state’s appeal for business investment.”

Yes, and to that we would add: 1) Ensure more strikes running for longer periods; 2) Risk forcing private employers to absorb tax hikes to keep the fund solvent. The Employment Department is estimating an additional annual cost of $5.6 million just at current strike levels.

This is, clearly, part of a national campaign Oregon and Washington were chosen to lead. As Oregon Public Broadcasting observed, “A growing number of Democratic states are taking up the question of whether to grant striking workers unemployment pay.”

We don’t fault the labor movement for seeking the best deals it can get on the public policy front. We do fault our elected representatives for so readily going in whole hog — including Gov. Tina Kotek, who stands publicly committed to signing whatever reaches her desk.

As the Oregon School Boards Association aptly observed, “If SB 916 passes in its current form, Oregon would have the most liberal policy in the nation for striking workers to collect unemployment insurance.”

We also detect a note of hypocrisy in the Democratic Party’s sudden embrace of getting paid for walking out. As Senate Republican Daniel Bonham noted:

“I was told walking out on the job and holding the entire state hostage wasn’t fair to the people of Oregon. I was told Oregonians who do not show up for work don’t get paid. There’s a lot to unpack here.”

Indeed, and that’s doubly true for public employees. After all, they would be getting paid out of a public fund for time taken off to seek a bigger cut from another public fund.