Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 10, 2017)
8 CapitalPress.com February 10, 2017 Oregon Attorney: Workers’ comp retaliation lawsuits on the rise New problems flaring up in field of farm labor, agricultural attorney says By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Farmers are increasingly facing accusa- tions of retaliating against employees who request workers’ compensation af- ter being hurt on the job, according to an agricultural attorney. Workers’ compensation — an insurance program for employees who are hurt on the job — traditional- ly hasn’t been a source of farm labor litigation, said Tim Bernasek, an attorney who heads the Dunn Carney law firm’s natural resources team. In the past 18 months, though, Bernasek said he’s encountered several law- suits and threats of lawsuits against Oregon farm em- ployers for alleged retali- ation against workers who file workers’ compensation claims. Retaliation is an unlaw- ful employment practice for which employees can seek financial damages, he said during Dunn Carney’s 2017 Ag Summit in Salem, Ore., on Jan. 20. It’s implausible that farm- ers have suddenly colluded to discriminate against these employees, but it’s unclear exactly why workers’ com- pensation has just recently caused problems, Bernasek said. Allegations of retali- ation have been made by employees who were receiv- ing workers’ compensation when they were fired for cause or who stopped show- ing up for work, he said. Even employees who have quit made retaliation claims, arguing that work conditions had grown so in- sufferable that they’d been “constructively discharged,” he said. Such cases aren’t easy to deal with, since they involve “he said-she said” interpre- tations of events, Bernasek said. “Be very careful when you terminate them, and I’d advise seeking legal advice before doing so,” he said of employees receiving work- ers’ compensation. The U.S. Department of Labor has also been increas- ingly watchful for poten- tial violations involving the transportation of workers, Jobs recovery lags in some rural areas of state By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Oregon now has more jobs than before the “great recession” but some rural areas are still lagging behind, according to the state economist. After the financial crisis a decade ago, Oregon lost roughly 8 percent of its jobs, said Mark McMullen, the state economist. Since then, the state has not only regained all those lost jobs but also increased the overall number by 6.5 percent from the pre-recession peak, he said during a Feb. 6 hearing before the House Committee on Economic Development and Trade. However, McMullen said those gains haven’t been felt equally by all regions of the state. The Portland metropolitan area has seen the strongest recovery, with the number of jobs now 9 percent higher than before the recession. There are now 7.5 percent more jobs in the Columbia Gorge, 6.8 percent more jobs in Central Oregon and 3.3 percent more jobs in the Wil- lamette Valley. Jobs in Southern Oregon contracted by roughly 12 per- cent during the recession but the region now has 0.3 per- cent more jobs than before the crisis. Northeast Oregon and the North Coast haven’t yet fully recovered, but the number of Mark McMullen jobs is less than a half-percent lower than before the reces- sion. Southeast Oregon still has 4.7 percent fewer jobs than the pre-recession peak, while the South Coast has 6.1 percent fewer jobs. The regions have seen worse times, though — both have recovered roughly half the jobs they lost during the recession. Some counties are still seriously reeling from the downturn. Gilliam County has recovered only 10 percent of the jobs it lost during the reces- sion, while Crook and Grant counties have recovered fewer than 30 percent. The good news is that nearly 100 percent of Oregon counties are now gaining jobs rather than losing them, Mc- Mullen said. The lone exception — Morrow County — is actual- ly an economic success story, but has recently lost some jobs because of the completion of major construction projects, he said. Oregon now has about 2 unemployed people per job opening, down from 11 peo- ple per open position in late 2009. In terms of income, the top 20 percent of Oregon house- holds are now making 6.7 percent more money than they were a decade ago, adjusted for inflation, he said. Inflation-ad- justed incomes are about 1 per- cent lower among the middle 20 percent of households and 7 percent lower among the bot- tom 20 percent. Oregon is the 12th most trade-dependent state in the U.S., he said. Computer and electronic equipment lead the way in exports, followed by heavy manufactured products such as metal and machinery, then agricultural goods and forestry products. China is the major destina- tion for Oregon exports, fol- lowed by Canada, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea. Exports from Oregon are now facing a headwind due to the high value of the U.S. dol- lar compared to other curren- cies, which makes our prod- ucts more expensive in foreign markets. “It hasn’t been this strong since 2000,” McMullen said. “It’s putting downward pres- sure on the demand for our exports.” Bernasek said. “It’s flaring up all of the sudden.” Technically, farmworkers who charge their co-workers for rides to the job site must be licensed as labor contrac- tors and follow other regula- tions under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Work- er Protection Act, he said. Since the DOL isn’t like- ly to enforce the law against farmworkers, the agency has been seeking to hold grow- ers responsible for violations of the rules, he said. Farmers can free them- selves of liability under an exemption for workers par- ticipating in car pools, but they must not allow super- visors to act as the drivers, he said. “Their activities are im- puted onto you for Depart- Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Tim Bernasek, agricultural attorney at the Dunn Carney law firm. ment of Labor purposes,” Bernasek said. Workers should also sign a disclosure stating that the farm provides no transpor- tation to or from job sites, though sufficient parking will be available, he said. Oregon lawmakers consider stronger invasive mussel defenses Quagga and zebra mussels can block irrigation intakes, disrupt ecosystems By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Oregon law- makers are considering whether to strengthen the state’s defenses against in- vasive aquatic mussels that threaten both irrigation sys- tems and ecosystems. The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Commit- tee has introduced legislation creating a new penalty for people who refuse to subject their boats to inspection for quagga and zebra mussels at checkpoints, among other measures. The mussels threaten to clog irrigation intakes and disrupt habitats for native fish species. Currently, drivers hauling boats who don’t stop at check points can be ticketed for traf- fic violations. The stations are located at common entry points for watercraft along Oregon’s borders. Under House Bill 2321, drivers who are pulled over by police within five miles of failing to stop at a checkpoint can be charged with a misde- Quagga mussel This non- native freshwater mussel poses a 0.8 inches major (Actual size) threat to U.S. waterways as an invasive species. It’s similar in appearance to its more infamous cousin, the zebra mussel. Binomial name: Dreissena rostriformis Appearance: Shell is striped, being more pale toward the end of the hinge Diet: Filter feeder Life span: 3-5 years Origin: Dnieper River drainage of Ukraine First observed: 1989 in Lake Erie near Port Colborne, Ontario Sources: www.wikipedia.org; USGS Capital Press graphic meanor if they refuse to return for inspection. If convicted, the crime would be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,250. The legislation would also eliminate a current exemp- tion under which operators of non-motorized watercraft under 10 feet in length, such as kayaks, don’t have to buy Aquatic Invasive Species Per- mits, which cost $5 a year. Money collected from sell- ing such permits is used to control invasive aquatic spe- cies. Under HB 2321, boats would have to be drained of all water before leaving a river or lake, with operators facing a penalty of $30 for non-motorized watercraft and $50 for motorized watercraft if they don’t comply with the requirement. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of boats inspect- ed for invasive mussels has grown from fewer than 3,000 to more than 16,000 per year, said Scott Brewen, director of the Oregon Marine Board, during a Feb. 2 committee hearing. While compliance with the check points has improved in recent years, about 18 percent of boaters still didn’t stop for inspections in 2016, spurring the idea for HB 2321, he said. Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio, said she sympa- thized with the intent of the bill but was concerned about the potential for boaters to be charged with a misdemeanor, the same class of crime as some thefts and assaults. Rep. Brian Clem, D-Sa- lem, said he wasn’t thrilled about eliminating the permit exemption for non-motorized watercraft under 10 feet in length, but he said the points would be further debated in the future. Rancher ‘harvests’ rainwater for use when needed By BRETT TALLMAN For the Capital Press SHERIDAN, Ore. — When Leo Krick built a rain- water harvest system in 2009, he had little to go on. “It was hard to figure out,” Krick said. “When we did it there wasn’t a lot out there.” Krick and his wife run a 36-head cow-calf operation on their 209-acre Cherryhill Ranch near Sheridan, Ore. The retired Portland fire- fighter did most of the plumb- ing himself. All told, the system cost about $3,500, 75 percent of which was cov- ered by a grant from the Ore- gon Watershed Enhancement Board and secured through the Yamhill Soil and Water Con- servation District. Now, rain- water provides all the winter water needs for their animals. Theoretically, the roof of Krick’s barn, at 84-by-84 feet, could generate 187,000 gal- lons of water in a typical year in Western Oregon. “Obviously, we don’t cap- ture all that,” he said, “but we catch what we can use and it’s been great.” Krick’s system, set at the northeast corner of his barn, is made up of four 2,500-gallon tanks plumbed to stock tanks inside the barn. Thanks to a little summer rain, those tanks have had water in them year- round for the last two years. “It doesn’t take that long to fill it,” Krick said. “Most years all four tanks are full by the end of October. If it’s a wet fall, it’s full by the end of Sep- tember.” Though they’ve never had well problems at Cherryhill Ranch, Krick said a rainwater collection system made sense for their operation. “We’re off the grid that way,” he said, “and by not put- ting any additional strain on groundwater we’re doing right by the environment.” Though rainwater harvest is nothing new, it’s getting a lot of attention in Oregon because landowners don’t need a water right to collect it. “Once it hits the ground it’s the belongs to the state of Or- egon,” Michael Crabtree said. “But it is legal to collect it off an impervious surface like a roof.” Crabtree, a senior con- servation technician with the Yamhill Soil and Water Con- servation District, helps inter- ested landowners find grants for rainwater collection sys- tems and even helps design and install them. 6-2/#4x
