Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Northwest labor press. (Portland , Ore.) 1987-current | View Entire Issue (March 18, 2016)
PAGE 2 | March 18, 2016 | NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS ...Historic wins in 2016 Oregon Legislative session NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS From Page 1 (International Standard Serial Number 0894-444X) Established in 1900 in Portland, Oregon as a voice of the la- bor movement. Published on a semi-monthly basis on the first and third Fridays of each month by the Oregon Labor Press Publishing Co. Inc., a non-profit mutual benefit corpo- ration owned by 20 unions and councils including the Ore- gon AFL-CIO. Serving more than 120 union organizations in Oregon and Southwest Washington. Office location: 4275 NE Halsey St., Portland, Oregon Mailing address: P.O. Box 13150, Portland, OR 97213 Phone: (503) 288-3311 Web address: http://nwlaborpress.org Editor: Michael Gutwig Associate editor: Don McIntosh Office manager: Cheri Rice Printed on recycled paper, using soy-based inks, by members of Teamsters Local 747-M. SUBSCRIPTIONS: Individual subscriptions are $13.75 per year for union members, $20 a year for all others. Send a check for that amount, indicating mailing address and union affilia- tion, to P.O. Box 13150, Portland, OR 97213. For 25 or more subscriptions, group rates of $9.60 a year per person are available to trade union organizations. Call 503-288-3311 for details. CORRECTIONS: See an error? Please let us know at editor@nwlaborpress.org or by phone at 503-288-3311. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT PORTLAND, OREGON. CHANGE OF ADDRESS NOTICE: Three weeks are required for a change of address. When or- dering a change, please give your old and new addresses and the name and number of your local union. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS P.O. BOX 13150 PORTLAND, OR 97213-0150 Broadway Floral for the BEST flowers call 503-288-5537 1638 NE Broadway, Portland 140 Low Prices! Mon-Fri 9-6, Sat 9:30-5:30, Sun 12-6 tered it down, including propos- als for a lower wage for farm workers, tipped workers, and young workers. In the wake of the Legisla- ture’s passage of SB 1532, both of the ballot measure campaigns announced the suspension of further efforts to gather signa- tures. Raise the Wage (the coali- tion behind the $13.50 measure) thanked the governor for leader- ship on the issue. 15 Now (the coalition behind the $15 meas- ure) was more critical, saying her motive was to undercut and eliminate the grassroots mini- mum wage movement. [You can see both statements at bit.ly/22fD6qT.] But both cam- paigns also acknowledged the historic significance of the in- crease. The bill got national atten- tion. Oregon is the first state to pass a law mandating different minimum wage rates for differ- ent parts of the state — an ap- proach that takes into account different costs of living and dif- ferent kinds of labor markets. Oregon AFL-CIO political di- rector Graham Trainor says his counterparts in Washington and California have been calling to talk about out how they can pull off something similar. The 2016 legislative session will be remembered for its his- toric increase in the minimum wage, but lawmakers dealt with many other issues of interest to working people as well. Affordable housing If there’s a shadow on the mini- mum wage increase, it’s that much of the additional wages may go right back out of work- ers’ pockets in the form of rent. The first raises, for example, amount to $86 a month in Port- land, but Portland-area rents have risen on average $100 in the past year. Rents are shooting up in all of Oregon’s urban areas, and Port- land rents are going up faster than anywhere else in the United States. But landlords and developers are used to getting their way in the Oregon Legis- lature. Back in 1999, they got lawmakers to ban “inclusionary zoning” — a tool used by cities in other states to create more af- fordable housing by mandating that developers make a certain percentage of new units afford- able if they want approval to build. Affordable housing advo- cates, with support from some unions, last year pushed to re- peal that ban, but the effort died in the Oregon Senate. They tried again this year, with a proposal to let cities require up to 30 per- cent of new units be affordable to those making at or below 60 percent of the median family in- come. What emerged instead was a heavily watered down version. Basically it keeps the ban in place, but creates a nar- row exception: Cities may man- date that no more than 20 per- cent of units be affordable, and only in multi-family housing de- velopments with 20 units or more. And the definition of “af- fordable” might surprise you — affordable to those making up to 80 percent of the median family income ($58,800). That’s not all: The mandate is only allowed if the city gives developers some incentive or payment, and de- velopers can opt out of the man- date by paying a fee. The meas- ure also allows cities to levy up a construction tax of up to 1 per- cent for affordable housing, but directs that 85 percent of that go toward incentives for develop- ers. And the Metro regional gov- ernment is barred from being able to levy that tax. Housing advocates and unions did help pass another renter protection however: HB 4143, the Renter Protection Bill, bars rent increases in the first year of a month-to-month rental, and requires landlords to give 90 days notice of rent increases. Wage theft If cheating people out of wages is against the law, you might not think it would be so hard to get the Oregon Legislature to insist on robust enforcement. But ef- forts in recent years to crack down on wage theft have failed to win passage. The good news is that this year, lawmakers are increasing the number of wage and hour in- vestigators by 45 percent. The bad news is: That’s only 3 indi- viduals, bringing the total to 10 to enforce the law for all work- ers in Oregon. SB 1587 also makes prevailing wage viola- tions a Class C felony, and al- lows the Oregon Bureau of La- bor and Industries to refer cases to district attorneys for prosecu- tion. It also supposedly requires employers to provide pay stubs to workers which itemize pay rates, hours worked, payroll de- ductions and other standard in- formation. But the law lays out no penalty when employers fail to do so.
