Wow, I can't believe a bill that makes so much sense for taxpayers as well as workers has been allowed to stall. The Senate has 3 weeks left. Let's get on it and pass this needed legislation!

Ah, but you have to question the premise---do we really act like every dollar counts? See the biofuels subsidy bill, HB 2210, which the good governor says will move out of Senate Finance this week. Say bye-bye to many many dollars, coming straight out of tax collections.

http://blog.onwardoregon.org/the-only-thing-we-learn-from-history/

We'd have a lot more dollars for things like Healthy Children and Head Start if we weren't tripping over ourselves to push subsidies to turn spraypaint a thin green facade over fossil fuels to be used to power SUVs.

What a waste! It is way beyond time that Oregon should step up to the plate and allow workers their right to organize with out being harassed. The State Legislature should remember, here in Oregon, Union Voters turn out in a very high percentage at each election. Lets use our tax dollars for what they are intended for!

It's hard to even know what to say. I sat with Jeanette and also testified on behalf of this bill, along with going through the same anti-union campaign at EHS, and can't believe that our elected officials are sitting on it. It seems like a no-brainer, use taxpayer dollars for what they granted for. Don’t pay employers to harass employees. Employees have the right to decide on whether they want to unionize or not.

It seems that the only thing that some lawmakers bristle at more than unaccountable spending of taxpayer money, is the notion that employees might form a union. Voting against this is essentially saying that wasting tax money is okay, as long as it is used to prevent workers from getting too uppity. If you’re a Republican this odd set of priorities would make ideological sense, I suppose, but what excuse do the Democrats who oppose this legislation have?

If you have ever talked face-to-face with someone who has tried to form a union at work—someone who has had to endure intimidation on a daily basis—I don’t see how you could be against something that tries to bring that person some relief. Even if you haven’t ever met someone who tried to form a union, how can you be okay with employers literally spending thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars to hire expensive union-busting law firms when they are supposed to be providing us with basic public services?

Mark Schwebke says:

"Let the employees decide for themselves whether or not they want a union and use taxpayer dollars for what they were intended for."

YOu heard it right here at blueoregon folks: a ringing endorsement of making Oregon a Right to Work/Union Dues Checkoff state. I agree 100%!!!

As a single mother of 2, I was appalled to hear what is currently happening with HB 2892. Early Head Start is one of the many valuable programs that seems to constantly be scraping by, and yet here they are allowed to waste money harassing their employees! Who holds these Contractors accountable when they are spending money that is supposed to go to educating our children? HB 2892 needs to continue moving and get passed, to protect the education of our children and those educating them. The Senate needs to stay focused so when they are determining the budgets of our educators the money is spent to do just that, not to harass those that are trying to exercise their rights as workers. Harassment is not something I would teach my children, and I don’t think the state should allow grown adults to get away with it either.

So Jeanette, what funds would you have the contractor/employer use in their campaign. Under the NLRA they have the right to present their side.

If y'all won representation then good for you. I also assume that you won't want the contractor using public funds to run the union automatic check-off request for dues to be with held from paychecks? Lets keep it real here.

"So Jeanette, what funds would you have the contractor/employer use in their campaign. Under the NLRA they have the right to present their side."

Nutmeg, the employer "presenting it's side" is one thing; they have staff meetings, memos, and eight hours of an employees day, every day, to do that as much as they want. It's a completely other thing for that employer to spend state funds on law firms who exploit every legal trick in the book and intimidate employees with retribution for speaking up.

It's not for nothing that employees undertake forming a union. When people organize they usually do so to achieve respect and a voice that they do not currently have at work. Hearing the "employer's side" (as if this is an exercise from a high school debate class) can't change the fact that people have been enduring their employer's disrespect for God knows how long.

One last thing I would ask you to think about here: if an employer has to hire a anti-union law firm to communicate with its employees in the first place, would you not agree that there is already a pretty fundamental break-down in communication between management and their employees?

On the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act):

The NLRA covers private sector union activity but non-federal public sector in Oregon is covered by the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA).

The bill being discussed in this thread amends PECBA, not the NLRA, which is Federal legislation. Because of this, the law being discussed here only applies to public sector workers in Oregon.

At the Federal level the roughly equivalent and very important legislation we need action on is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which I believe has also been discussed here on BlueOregon.

Thank you for the bringing this situation to light, Jeanette.

I see the problem as two disturbing issues. The first is the alarming news that it appears Early Head Start, a respected and successful program, used funds outside the scope of that for which the Oregon legislature appropriated them. This is plainly not right, and resulted in a loss of much-needed aid to Oregon kids. I too strongly support the State Financial Accountability Act, and I encourage the legislature to stop what is happening to Early Head Start and other similarly situated programs immediately.

The second disturbing issue here is the attempt to influence and frustrate the lawful desire of the Early Head Start workers to unionize. The right to organize--that some employers try to frustrate, complicate, and outright deny--is essential to the force and vibrancy of the middle class in Multnomah County and throughout the state and country. The strength in union numbers has been greatly diminished by tactics like those apparently employed by the Early Head Start management. Employers manufacture largely artificial roadblocks to prevent groups of workers from coming together, and it must stop. That American workers should organize is, in fact, so fundamental it is reflected in our national motto. “E Pluribus Unum:” From the many, one.

Rob Milesnick

I'll grant you that there is generally a basic problem with communication and leadership when there are 45 - 70 per cent who sign cards. However, there are also those out there who view it as a power grab an opportunity to increase retirement, benefits and wages.

The representation process is tilted in favor of the union and those pushing for representation - it was deliberately set up that way. The union brings in high priced organizers supported by AFL-CIO dues; why can't the company engaged a consultant PR or specialist law firm?

<h2>I do notice that everyone sidestepped my other question. If you don't want public $$$$ used to campign against a union during the representation campign, why is it OK to use public $$$$ in furtherance of the automatic check off of union dues when the union wins representation? You can't have it both ways folks - that wouldn't be 'progressive'.</h2>