A hard-fought bill to let workers collect unemployment benefits when they go on strike was approved by the Oregon House and Senate June 12 in organized labor’s biggest win of the 2025 legislative session.
Heralding the passage of Senate Bill 916, the Oregon AFL-CIO called it landmark legislation and a major victory for workers.
“Extending unemployment to striking Oregonians is a necessary step towards leveling the playing field just a notch between workers and employers,” said Oregon AFL-CIO President Graham Trainor in a statement immediately after the bill’s passage.
Oregon is the fourth state to allow strikers to receive unemployment benefits, following New York, New Jersey, and Washington.
Critics of the bill said it will lead to more frequent strikes, but supporters say that prediction is overblown. Oregon’s unemployment benefits range from $196 to $836 per week and typically replace only about 65% of working income, so workers would still be sacrificing economically if they strike. The more likely impact, supporters say, is that employers would make more reasonable offers in collective bargaining negotiations, because strikers wouldn’t be as fearful of extreme deprivation.
While union leaders are publicly celebrating what is by all accounts a big win, they’re also privately frustrated with how difficult it was to pass, and how much the proposal had to be watered down to win a majority in a legislature where Democrats hold a three-fifths supermajority.
Once signed by the governor, SB 916 will be the first law in the nation to allow public-sector workers to collect unemployment benefits when they strike, and that fact caused a handful of Democrats to balk.
Struggle to pass SB 916
When it was first introduced at the Oregon AFL-CIO, SB 916 simply removed the current prohibition on unemployment benefits for striking workers, treating strikers like any other workers who were out of work. But the Senate Labor and Business Committee amended it so that workers would have to be on strike two weeks before collecting benefits. Other workers are eligible for unemployment benefits after just one “waiting” week. The committee also amended the bill to say that workers would have to repay their unemployment benefits if a strike settlement included back pay for hours they didn’t work. That’s rare, but not unheard of for public employers — Portland teachers got full back pay after their high-profile 2023 strike. As amended, the bill passed March 20 by 16-12. Democrats Jeff Golden (Ashland) and Janeen Sollman (Hillsboro) joined all Senate Republicans in voting against the bill.
It then went to the House, where the House Labor and Workplace Standards committee amended it further. Now striking workers would be limited to eight weeks of benefits if reserves in the Oregon unemployment system drop below a certain threshold. Other unemployed workers get up to 26 weeks. As further amended, the bill passed June 4 by 33-23. Democrat John Lively (Springfield) joined Republicans in voting no.
For a bill to become law, the House and Senate must pass identical versions of a bill. Because the House amended what the Senate passed, the Senate now had to vote on the House-amended version.
To the great surprise of labor leaders, the bill failed 14-15 on June 10. Democrat Mark Meek (Gladstone), who had signed on as one of the original sponsors of the bill and voted for it in March, joined all Republicans in voting no. So did Democrat Courtney Neron Misslin (Wilsonville), who was appointed to the Senate May 7 to fill a seat vacated when Sen. Aaron Woods died of cancer in April. Woods had voted yes on SB 916 in March.
After the vote, bill sponsors Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D-Milwaukie) and Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-Beaverton) led a conference committee and scrambled to work out a further amendment to SB 916 that could bring the wavering Democrats on board. The amendment they came up with added a 10-week limit to benefits for strikers even when the unemployment fund is healthy.
With that final change, SB 916 passed 16-12 in the Senate and 35-22 in the House on June 12. All Republicans present in both chambers voted against it. In the Senate, Democrats Golden and Sollman stuck with their earlier no votes while Democrats Meek and Neron Misslin came around to support the final bill. In the House, the vote was strictly on party lines, with Democrat John Lively reversing his June 4 no vote.
Grayber, one of the bill’s most ardent advocates, said she was proud of the bill despite the changes.
“I would be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed that we weren’t able to move the other (version of the bill), but sometimes that is the art of moving things out of this building,” Grayber said.
Why some Dems voted no
In a statement provided to the Labor Press, Neron Misslin said her June 10 vote against the bill was a call for compromise.
“I want to highlight that even with this compromise, I continue to have concerns about the state of our public sector funding, concerns that have been echoed by many in my district,” Neron Misslin said. “My ‘yes’ vote is rooted in trust: trust that this amended version will be implemented carefully, that labor unions will use this tool responsibly, and that we, as a legislature, will follow this bill with bold, overdue action on revenue reform and funding stability for public institutions.”
Meek, the Senate Democrat who voted yes, no, then yes again, did not respond to several requests by the Labor Press for an interview or comment, and did not file an explanation when he cast his votes.
Golden would have voted in favor of the bill if it only applied to the private sector, said a member of his staff. In a vote explanation filed in the Senate, Golden described SB 916 applying to public sector workers as “irresponsible.” Golden also said he wasn’t persuaded that SB 916 won’t result in more strikes. “When bill advocates brush these costs aside and tell us that the impact will be minimal, because they’ll rarely if ever use the new tool 916 gives them, they’re not exactly complimenting our intelligence. It stands to reason that the low number of past strikes they point to will rise,” Golden wrote.
Sollman also filed a written vote explanation saying she couldn’t support SB 916 while Trump administration tariffs and DOGE cuts threaten school districts and other public sector budgets. “I did not surprise the advocates or the carrier of the bill with my opposition,” Sollman wrote. “I was transparent with my concerns and my ultimate position.”
Based on strike data from the past decade, the Oregon Employment Department estimated that striking workers would cost the unemployment fund $6.6 million over the next four years. That’s just a small fraction of the $4.5 billion in unemployment benefits OED forecasts it will distribute over the same four-year period.
Legislators pledged to monitor how the new law impacts the state’s unemployment fund.
“This bill was such a lightning rod for labor,” Grayber said. “It was a battle over a labor value that I’ve never quite seen before. So I think the first time a striking union utilizes this bill, it’s going to be headline news.”
