Proposed job-posting requirements also draws NFIB testimony in opposition
State Director Anthony Smith reports from Salem on the small-business agenda for the legislative and political week ending March 24
March 24 was Day 67 of the 160-day 2023 Oregon Legislative Session, and the first major bill deadline has officially come and gone. Friday, March 17, was the last day for policy committees to post a bill for a work session, which marked the end of hundreds of legislative proposals that won’t be moving forward this year. Many more are expected to perish by Tuesday, April 4 – the last day for a bill to be voted out of committee, except for Rules, Revenue, and Joint committees, which I’ve noted before in prior updates.
Notable Dead Bills
NFIB has already taken official positions on more than 25 bills this session – both in support and in opposition. Most of them are still alive, but four are now dead. Here’s a quick look at each of them.
HB 2936 Indirect Sources of Emissions
NFIB Opposed – Directs Environmental Quality Commission to establish and implement indirect source review program. More information here.
HB 2536 Business Contracts
NFIB Opposed – Imposes requirements on third-party food platforms. More information here.
HB 3022 DEQ/EQC Regulatory Oversight
NFIB Supported – Prohibits Environmental Quality Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality from adopting or enforcing rules or standards related to motor vehicle fuels or emissions unless authorized by the Legislative Assembly. More information here.
HB 3158 Tire/Diesel/Equipment Tax
NFIB Opposed – Imposes excise tax on retail sale of tires, privilege tax for engaging in business of providing nonroad diesel equipment, tax on use in Oregon of nonroad diesel equipment purchased out of state at retail, heavy equipment rental tax on rentals of nonroad diesel equipment, privilege tax on heavy-duty vehicles and license tax on dyed diesel for transfer to Clean Diesel Engine Fund. More information here.
Hopefully, in the next update, I’ll be able to add to this list with many more bad bills!
Estate Tax Reform Back in the Spotlight
On March 14, the Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue held a public hearing on SB 939, chief sponsored by Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland). It would reform Oregon’s estate tax in several important ways. First, it would raise the $1 million exemption to account for inflation over the last 12 years since the statue was last updated. Second, it would provide for annual adjustments for inflation going forward.
Lastly, it would allow each individual to maintain the full exemption value of their estate regardless of marital status, sometimes referred to as “portability.” Under current law, when a married couple dies, they only get a $1 million exemption, but if that couple was divorced, they would each get a $1 million exemption, so their heirs would be able to inherit up to $2 million in assets without being taxed. This is called a “marriage penalty” – and its generally bad tax policy. NFIB testified in support of the bill, but also used the opportunity to stress the importance of reforming Oregon’s estate tax more broadly. Here’s an excerpt:
Just to add a little more background, Oregon’s estate tax applies to all estates valued at $1 million or more. The tax rates range from 10 percent to 16 percent on the value of the estate that exceeds $1 million. In contrast, the federal estate tax exemption level is currently $12.92 million (for 2023) and, as you might already be aware, three-fourths of states do not impose an estate tax at all.
Only the state of Massachusetts has an exemption threshold as low as Oregon’s at $1 million and Gov. Maura Healey has proposed raising their estate tax exemption threshold to $3 million. If Massachusetts passes the governor’s recommendation, it really leaves Oregon sticking out like a sore thumb – and not just here in the West, but nationally. (Re: our neighbors, CA, ID, NV – no estate tax. WA = $2.193 million for 2023.)
We need to have a meaningful conversation about estate tax reform in Oregon before we see more and more middle-class families caught up in an estate tax situation they may not be prepared for – and at a time in their lives when family members are grieving the loss of a loved one.
To add insult to injury, it would be a shame if lifelong Oregonians decided to spend their retirement years in neighboring states that have no estate tax – which most certainly has a negative impact on other state revenues and our economy, when people with money to spend leave the state.
NFIB encourages the committee to support eliminating or reforming Oregon’s estate tax and is ready to work with all interested legislators and stakeholders to make our state more hospitable to hard-working Oregonians looking to pass the family business on from generation to generation.
The estate tax conversation will continue Monday, March 27, when SB 68, chief sponsored by Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Vale), is up for a public hearing. NFIB will be testifying in support of this bill as well, which provides for an additional exemption of up to $1.5 million for taxpayers with estates valued at $4.5 million or less.
NFIB Opposes New Job Posting Requirements
On March 16, the Senate Committee on Labor and Business held a public hearing on SB 925, which would make it an unlawful practice for an employer in Oregon to advertise a job, a promotion, or a transfer opportunity without disclosing a pay range and employment benefits in the job posting. NFIB testified in opposition. Here’s an excerpt:
This bill would authorize BOLI to penalize employers for failing to comply with these new disclosure requirements – $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation, and so on, up to $10,000. SB 925 also allows for a private right of action in addition to BOLI enforcement. This legislation will impact thousands of small and independent businesses across Oregon. While the bill may be intended to promote pay transparency, instead it creates an unnecessary, potentially costly, and burdensome state mandate on small businesses. There are already significant federal and state standards that explicitly prohibit wage discrimination.
SB 925 sets up employers, particularly small businesses, for non-compliance. The bill also fails to acknowledge the nature of a small business’ labor and productivity needs – job responsibilities, titles, and specific roles are often ever-evolving. Compensation and wage ranges may not be uniform for any given available position but can fluctuate based on individual candidates’ qualifications, experience, and availability. One-size-fits-all mandates that fail to differentiate between large corporations and Main Street businesses always disproportionally burden the latter.
Large employers can hire human resource staff to determine salaries, document and analyze pay ranges, create job descriptions, and train employees on new laws. They’re also far more equipped to handle transparency guidelines, without putting additional job responsibilities and stress on existing employees. Small businesses, on the other hand, would likely depend on existing employees to perform these tasks, as many lack dedicated human resource staff.
The bottom line here is that when it makes sense for a small business to advertise pay range and/or benefits, they do. But sometimes it’s more complicated than that – and the last thing small businesses need to worry about is that their job postings are going to get them sued.
Previous Weekly Reports and Related Information
- February 15—NFIB Oregon Small Business Day, April 18
