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.