Union employees could collect unemployment payments while on strike under a bill that Oregon farm and business organizations fear will prolong work stoppages during labor disputes.

Opponents are now urging the House Labor Committee to reject or revise the proposal, arguing the version passed by the Senate will skew negotiations over work contracts.

“Oregon already has a reputation for being unfriendly to business,” Paloma Sparks, executive vice president of the Oregon Business & Industry organization, recently told the committee. “We won’t pretend this will chase away all businesses but it is yet another factor that weighs against Oregon.”

The Oregon Farm Bureau worries that Senate Bill 916 will create “an imbalance in the management-labor dynamic” by allowing striking workers to receive unemployment payments.

Apart from the direct effect on strikes, the Farm Bureau and other small business organizations are afraid SB 916 will make Oregon’s unemployment system more expensive to maintain, even for companies who never experience work stoppages.

“The concern is for small employers that might face tax increases if we see strikes go longer,” said Jenny Dresler, lobbyist for the Farm Bureau.

Lawmakers lack a way to “quantify the propensity to strike,” which may be increased by reducing the incentives to settle disputes, according to the bill’s detractors.

Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise, who is now a rancher but was employed at a sawmill in the 1980s, said he participated in a strike against his employer but recognized at a certain point it was time to get back to work.

“We found a way to meet in the middle,” Nash said. “This doesn’t inspire that sort of thing to take place.”

People expect lawmakers to “protect the sanctity” of the unemployment insurance system, which they rely on “not in their time of want, or their time of desire, but their time of need,” said Sen. Dan Bonham, R-The Dalles.

“I believe we are absolutely unbalancing the bargaining table with the base bill,” Bonham said.

Under SB 916, workers who are on strike would no longer be disqualified from unemployment benefits after two weeks, but they’d have to return the money if they later receive back pay when the dispute is settled.

Supporters argue the proposal will help prevent employers from “starving out” and coercing workers into accepting exploitative terms in their contracts.

“Corporations have the upper hand in negotiations when it comes to money,” said Brandon Bryant, president of the Northwest district of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Employers can rely on stockpiled inventory, cash reserves and agreements with suppliers to remain operational during a strike, which can actually draw out such work stoppages, he said.

The bill would probably compel employers to make their best offers to workers more quickly and reduce the likelihood of strikes, Bryant said. “It would change negotiations to be more impactful.”

Opponents of SB 916 believe the opposite would happen, with unemployment payments making workers more likely to strike and less willing to end stoppages.

They also argue the proposal subverts key principles of unemployment insurance, which is usually paid to those actively seeking employment after being laid off through no fault of their own.

However, Republicans said they recognize that “momentum” has built behind the proposal and asked the Senate to at least amend the legislation by banning public employee unions from striking.

Such a prohibition would align Oregon with the two other states that allow unemployment payments during strikes, New Jersey and New York, according to Republican lawmakers.

The version of SB 916 proposed by Republicans would’ve also required unions to maintain four weeks of strike funds and only allow workers to receive unemployment benefits once that cash has run out.

“This approach upholds fairness,” said Sen. Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook. “Let’s ensure Oregon’s labor policies remain fair and sustainable.”

The Republican minority’s amendment was voted down by Democrats, who claimed the revisions would be discriminatory to public employee unions that already face heightened restrictions.

Neither public nor private union employees view strikes as vacations, as they often spend their time on picket lines or work second jobs, according to supporters of SB 916.

The decision to strike isn’t made lightly, but workers are left with no choice when companies refuse to provide adequate wages, health insurance and retirement plans, even while offering exorbitant salaries and bonuses to executives, according to proponents.

“Far too often, we see workers’ hands forced by their employers,” said Graham Trainor, president of the Oregon AFL-CIO union.