May 9 was Day 109 of the 160-day 2025 Oregon Legislative Session, and it marked the final day for legislative committee chairs to post work sessions for bills they plan to advance in the second chamber. Bills that aren’t voted out of committee by May 23 will be officially dead for the 2025 session, with the notable exception of bills assigned to either chamber’s rules or revenue committees, and the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, which is the Oregon Legislature’s budget-writing committee.

Two of the most controversial labor issues of the year are already scheduled for work sessions in the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards – SB 916 (unemployment insurance benefits for striking workers) and SB 426 (property owner and construction contractor wage claim liability). Both bills recently received public hearings, where NFIB and a large coalition of allies testified in opposition.

SB 426 is scheduled for a work session on May 14 and SB 916 is scheduled for May 19. If they aren’t voted directly to the House floor before the May 23 deadline, the bills could find new life in the House Committee on Rules, which is common for highly contentious measures like these. Since rules committees are not subject to legislative deadlines, these bills could theoretically stay alive all the way up to the last day of session, which must occur on or before June 29, 2025.

Here’s what’s been happening in the Oregon Capitol – and what’s coming up:

No Peace of Mind for Oregon Employers

A bill that hasn’t received much publicity, but one that NFIB has been closely monitoring since the beginning of this year’s session is HB 2957, which would (among other provisions) eliminate the 90-day time limit for an aggrieved employee to sue their employer following the investigation of a complaint by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).

Currently, Oregon’s workplace discrimination laws (ORS 659A) are enforceable via private right of action (a lawsuit) or the BOLI complaint process. The employee gets to make the choice. If they choose to file a lawsuit, the statute of limitations is five years, but they and/or their attorney will bear the cost of investigating all the relevant circumstances of the case.

If they choose to file with BOLI, the employee still has five years to submit the complaint, but Oregon taxpayers bear the cost of the investigation (which can take up to one year). If BOLI then dismisses the case, the employee and their attorney maintain access to the agency’s investigatory findings and may use them in a legal proceeding, so long as they file in court within 90 days of the date on the notice from BOLI.

HB 2957 would eliminate this 90-day window to sue, allowing employees the full five years to file their lawsuit regardless of whether the case was already dismissed by BOLI. Few small businesses in Oregon have the resources or bandwidth to defend themselves against a BOLI investigation for up to a year and then remain prepared for litigation that may be filed years later. The BOLI process should not be utilized as a taxpayer-funded fact-finding agency for plaintiffs and their lawyers.

NFIB provided testimony in opposition to the bill and will likely include it on NFIB’s next official Voting Record for Oregon. The bill is currently scheduled for an additional public hearing and work session in the Senate Committee on Labor and Business.

New Payroll Tax Proposal to Fight Wildfires

No matter the subject matter of the bill, any legislative proposal that includes the phrase “providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority” in its “relating-to” clause, is automatically added to NFIB’s bill tracking list.

We track each and every one of these bills for precisely the reason that came up just two days before HB 3940 was scheduled for a public hearing in the House Committee on Revenue. When the bill was first presented in the House Committee on Climate, Energy, and Environment, the bill focused on creating a new dedicated funding source for the state to pay for ongoing wildfire costs.

Proposed sources of revenue included modifications to the state’s existing forest products harvest tax, the state’s insurance retaliatory tax, and a new five cent surcharge (nonrefundable sales tax) on bottles and cans to be added on top of the current ten cent refundable deposit, which received quite a lot of attention from the general public.

The -A9 amendments were posted just after 10 a.m. on April 29, proposing an alternative funding option in the form of a new payroll tax on wages paid to all workers in Oregon and all residents of Oregon working in other states.

Oregon already imposes numerous employer and employee payroll taxes to fund specific programs (UI taxes, Paid Leave Oregon, and Statewide Transit Tax) – and regardless of the merits of those programs, they all add up and increase labor costs for Oregon’s businesses.

NFIB testified in strong opposition during the May 1 public hearing.

Up Next: Revenue Forecast and Budget Priorities

As mentioned in previous legislative update, what happens next in the Oregon Legislature is largely dependent on the next quarterly revenue forecast, which will occur May 14. If the state’s chief economist predicts the state will bring in more tax dollars than originally projected that means state lawmakers have more money to spend – and they most certainly will.

There are currently over 500 bills assigned to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. Only budget bills are referred directly to this committee after being first read in their chamber of origin. There are about 100 of these measures and they are easily identifiable by their bill numbers – always a four digit number beginning with “5”, for example, HB 5001 or SB 5501. The other 400 legislative proposals are policy bills that have a fiscal impact on the state, meaning they will require the state to spend taxpayer dollars to implement them.

This year’s state budget will be the largest in state history – and as crazy as it sounds, this is almost always true, except during times of severe economic recession. Still, taxpayer dollars are finite and once we find out from Oregon’s Office of Economic Analysis how much the budget writers have to work with, some of those 400 policy bills will be moving forward, but many of them will not, which is sure to cause some angst in the Capitol for lawmakers hoping to implement new state programs and/or fund projects in their districts.

Two bills we’ll be watching closely are HB 2746 (wage and benefit disclosure mandate) and HB 2688 (prevailing wage for off-site work). NFIB opposed both measures when they were assigned to the House Committee on Labor and Business. Both were moved to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means in early April to avoid the Legislature’s first chamber deadline.

HB 2746 would require Oregon employers, large and small, to include wage and benefit information in job postings for new hires, promotions, and transfers. It also requires employers to maintain wage and benefit history records for each employee.

Some excerpts from NFIB’s testimony opposing the bill:

The bill would authorize BOLI to penalize employers up to $10,000 per year for failing to comply with these new disclosure requirements … 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…. HB 2746 sets up employers, particularly small businesses, for non-compliance.

HB 2688 would require employers to pay prevailing wage for custom off-site work where materials are fabricated, preconstructed, assembled or constructed in accordance with specifications for public projects.

Here’s an excerpt from NFIB’s coalition testimony in opposition to the bill:

Prevailing wage law is complicated… [HB 2688] will likely have the impact of decreasing the number of manufacturers in Oregon, outside of Oregon and even internationally, who are willing to provide materials and goods for public works in Oregon. This will decrease the availability of these goods for projects or in some cases, completely eliminate the ability to procure the goods needed for projects. For those manufacturers who do choose to continue to manufacture for Oregon public works, they will have to increase their prices to compensate for the increased requirements and administrative work required to ensure compliance with prevailing wage law.

Prior Legislative Reports 

— April 25: Legislators’ Eyes on May 14 Revenue Forecast

— April 12: Oregon Legislature Reaches Mid-Point of 2025 Session

— March 21: Bills Look to Incentivize Litigation, End At-Will Employment

— March 8: NFIB Testifies for Bill Correcting UI Tax Trap

— February 14: Bad Age-Discrimination Bill Resurfaces. Flurry of Activity on Estate Tax

— February 1: Oregon Legislators Begin Work on 2,500 Bills