By DIRK VANDERHART/Oregon Public Broadcasting

SALEM — Striking workers in Oregon are a step closer to being eligible for weekly unemployment checks, after a tight vote in the state Senate on Thursday.

Senate Bill 916 passed by the bare minimum 16 votes in the 30-member chamber, with two Democrats bucking the rest of their party over concerns the policy could harm cash-strapped cities and counties. SB 916 now moves to the House.

The razor thin-vote followed more than an hour of debate, in which most Democrats insisted unemployment pay would be comparatively rare, but give striking workers the stability to hold out for a fair contract.

“They make it so that every day we have clean water, safe roads, safe everything,” Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, said of union workers. “We owe them the respect of allowing this provision.”

Opponents said the policy risked hiking costs for governments and businesses alike. And they argued the promise of at least some pay would inspire longer and more frequent strikes that could ultimately harm the state’s unemployment fund.

“The unemployment insurance fund is an institution in this state,” said Senate Minority Leader Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles. “Oregonians trust that we, the Legislature, will protect the sanctity of this fund so that it’s there in their time of need — not their time of want, not their time of desire.”

Unemployment payments in Oregon range from $196 to $836 a week and are currently available only to employees who are out of work through no choice of their own.

SB 916 would change that, making Oregon the first state in the country to grant unemployment benefits to striking workers in both the public and private sectors. New York and New Jersey, the only two states that offer unemployment pay to striking workers, don’t permit public employees to strike.

The bill was proposed by labor unions, and has been championed by majority Democrats who typically receive political support from labor.

Under the bill, workers who strike for at least two weeks become eligible for weekly checks. Exactly how much the new law would increase unemployment payments in Oregon has been a key point of debate.

The Oregon Employment Department has acknowledged it cannot predict that number. If the trends of the past 10 years hold, however, the department said Oregon would pay out around $4.7 million in unemployment payments to striking workers over the next two years.

But if the future is more like the recent past, which has included weekslong strikes by Portland teachers and Providence nurses, the number shoots up. The employment department says a continuation of strike trends from the past three years would lead to $11.2 million in payments to striking workers.

SB 916 aims to ensure public employers won’t see employment costs increase during a strike, but that might not always be possible. Cities have said they could be forced to hire temporary workers in some strike scenarios, meaning they would pay for that labor on top of unemployment pay.

Worries over what the bill might mean for school districts and local governments led two Democrats to oppose the bill.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, said he was sympathetic to the argument that large corporations may have too much power in labor negotiations. But he didn’t see the same problem at the city and county level.

“It is true that especially billion-plus dollar corporations have the resources to starve workers into bad deals,” Golden said. “That doesn’t mean it’s true for the public sector.”

Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, voiced similar concerns. She noted Washington County is facing a possible $20 million deficit. She and another senator, Dundee Republican Bruce Starr, warned lawmakers against passing a pioneering law with unclear impacts.

“Counties, cities and schools are scrambling to just maintain current services,” Sollman said. “Now is not the time to be adding more uncertainty and more expenses.”

Republicans unanimously opposed the bill, and offered their own suggestion. The party introduced a “minority report” on the floor — essentially a counter-proposal the GOP urged senators to adopt in place of the original bill.

The proposal would have required unions to maintain their own funds to pay workers for strikes lasting up to four weeks. If striking workers received state unemployment benefits after that time, they would be required to pay back the money with interest. The minority report bill also would have barred public employees from striking.

Republicans knew their idea was dead in the water, but used the minority report to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy.

A lengthy preamble in the Republican proposal contained more than a dozen quotes from Democrats and their allies, who in recent years have railed against Republican lawmakers walking away from the Capitol in protest.

One example: A 2022 voter’s pamphlet statement from the state’s largest labor union, Service Employees International Union Local 503, urging voters to create penalties for walkouts. “If we don’t show up to work, there are real consequences,” it said. “Not just for us — such as losing pay, being fired, or other discipline — but also for the people we serve.”

In 2023, during the longest Republican walkout in state history, Bonham said he heard arguments diametrically opposed to the law Democrats approved Thursday.

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