PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A bill advanced in the Oregon House earlier this week that could allow eligible employees who are on strike to receive unemployment benefits -- raising concerns among superintendents of Oregon's largest school districts.

Senate Bill 916 A passed out of the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards on Wednesday after passing the Senate in a 16-12 vote.

The bill would repeal a law that denies unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed Oregonians due to an active labor dispute, allowing striking workers who are otherwise eligible for UI could receive benefits under the bill.

Additionally, the bill would create an extra unpaid week for striking workers before they can qualify for UI benefits. Under the bill, striking workers have a one-week UI disqualification period followed by another one-week waiting period before they can receive the benefits.

The bill would also make school districts deduct from future wage benefits received by an employee during a strike.

If the bill passes, Republican committee members note Oregon would become the first state in the nation to allow public employees to receive UI while on strike.

The bill has raised concerns from the superintendents of Beaverton School District, Bend-La Pine Schools, Gresham-Barlow School District, Hillsboro School District, Medford School District, Portland Public Schools, Salem-Keizer Public Schools and Tigard-Tualatin School District.

The superintendents of those districts -- among the largest in Oregon -- penned a letter to members of Oregon's House on May 16, urging them to oppose the bill, citing major budget concerns.

"We must share the serious financial strain and administrative burden this bill would place on school districts – especially during a time of profound fiscal uncertainty. The core of our concern is simple: every public dollar intended for education must be spent in a way that directly benefits students," the superintendents wrote.

"SB 916 A may create new financial pressures that could affect how we allocate resources to
support educational services. As you know, public employers like school districts in Oregon are directly responsible for covering unemployment benefits—these costs are paid dollar-for-dollar by each school district," the superintendents continued. "Should this bill pass, districts like ours would be required to cover the costs of unemployment payments for labor disputes, further reducing already tight budgets. We simply do not have the financial capacity to absorb new and unplanned costs of this nature without significant impacts on students, including the possibility of shorter school years, increased class sizes, or reductions in critical student programs and support services."

The superintendents also acknowledged an amendment introduced by Committee Chair Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-SW Portland & Easter Beaverton), which tacked on the bill's provision allowing districts to deduct the amount of benefits charged from an employee's future wages.

"We appreciate the amendment to SB 916 A, intended to make the bill 'cost-neutral' for school districts by ensuring that districts do not pay more than 100% of an employee’s compensation," the superintendents wrote.

"Unfortunately, from both a policy and operational standpoint, this provision raises serious implementation concerns. Whether school districts have to receive confirmation of UI benefits paid before they can process partial backpay to striking employees, or to recover UI benefits that are clawed back from employees, school districts may be left in prolonged financial limbo."

"According to information from the Oregon Employment Department, districts may not see
reimbursement for UI benefits for months following a strike—if at all—leading to significant
cash flow issues during already difficult budget years. For districts that finalize their budgets in
June, these unknown costs and timelines further complicate fiscal planning and threaten to
destabilize student services," the letter states.

These concerns were also discussed by the House committee members during Wednesday's meeting, where Chair Grayber discussed her amendment.

“This is an amendment that I brought forward in an attempt to be responsive to concerns to a changing revenue forecast and ultimately to be deeply protective of the UI fund. It is my utmost intention, it is of all of us, to protect that fund and make sure we have a solvent, robust UI fund that does not suffer the whims of recession or the economy,” Grayber explained.

The committee chair added, “We heard from school districts, we heard from school boards about some concerns they had. While some of those concerns are based in just how our UI fund is actually structured – those are fundamental things – we sought to find ways that make this more streamlined for that cost recovery.”

After the bill passed out of the House committee, Republican committee members issued a press release accusing Democratic committee members of ignoring the calls of the superintendents.

“Without a doubt, this legislation will hurt Oregon students. We should be listening to our School Administrators who steward our education dollars instead of prioritizing political donors,” said Rep. Boshart Davis (R-Albany).

“Either we are concerned about the well-being of our students, our lagging education results, and our chronic rates of absenteeism or we aren’t. It is hard for me to fathom that Democratic Legislators are willing to turn a blind eye to their very own Superintendents and our students – but here we are,” added Rep. Scharf (R-Amity).

The Republican committee members pointed to an amendment introduced by Sen. Christine Drazan (R-Canby), which would have added a two-week disqualification period for UI.

The amendment would also cap the number of weeks benefits could be received to six weeks, noting as drafted, the bill would allow striking workers to receive up to 26-weeks of benefits, except during a recession or as the economy recovers from a recession, when workers are less likely to strike.

The amendment would also make the bill effective until 2035 to allow lawmakers to examine its effectiveness.

The Republican committee members said they made a motion to send the bill to the House Rules Committee for further discussion, but the motion was voted down.

During Wednesday's committee meeting, Rep. Travis Nelson (D-Portland) argued in favor of the bill, stating, “I know there’s a lot of concerns about a dramatic increase in strikes – I’ve been involved in the labor movement for a long time. I know that union workers do not want to strike. It is a last resort. There are many offramps before you even get to that point. I think that the conversations around an increase in strikes related to this bill have been overblown…I don’t think that we’re going to see our schools and our local governments hit the way that many have indicated.”

“I hear those concerns, and Representative, I agree with you,” Chair Grayber responded to Nelson. “This bill will hopefully result in shorter strikes, if we go to those strikes at all.”

“I have read those concerns of major school districts, I have read the concerns brought forward by other educational (groups including the Oregon School Boards Association and the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators) and I just want to underline investing in our teachers is investing in our schools and our students,” Grayber continued. “I’m not going to gaslight anyone and say, ‘Yeah, nothing bad will happen.’ We don’t know. When we’re taking policy on like this, it is something that we are leaning into and saying we believe in the ability of this policy to protect those workers and to bring, hopefully, resolution quicker so that our students are back in those schools. I stand by that.”

In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News on Thursday, Grayber's office explained, "The majority of changes to Senate Bill 916 have been in direct response to questions and feedback from school districts, in order to streamline administration and mitigate any cost impact in the event of a strike. Additionally, since 2000, there have been only eight school strikes, constituting less than 0.5% of all negotiations. Almost none of these would have been long enough to be affected by SB 916 had it been in place.”

The bill is backed by the AFL-CIO with chief sponsors including Senators Kathleen Taylor (D-Milwaukie, Oak Grove, SE & NE Portland), Wlnsvey Campos (D-Aloha), James Manning Jr. (D-Eugene), along with Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-SW Portland, East Beaverton) and House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D-Tigard, Metzger and South Beaverton).