Loading policy item
HB 4109
This proposal did not become law. HB 4109 would have eliminated unemployment insurance benefits for workers unemployed due to an active strike in Oregon, repealing the prior allowance established by SB 916 (2025). Striking individuals would have been permanently disqualified from UI benefits for any week their unemployment is tied to a labor dispute in active progress, while lockout-affected workers retain eligibility. The change would have reduced UI Trust Fund outlays and shifts financial pressure during labor negotiations onto employees and their unions.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
HB 4109 would have eliminated unemployment insurance benefits for workers unemployed due to an active strike in Oregon, repealing the prior allowance established by SB 916 (2025). Striking individuals would have been permanently disqualified from UI benefits for any week their unemployment is tied to a labor dispute in active progress, while lockout-affected workers retain eligibility. The change would have reduced UI Trust Fund outlays and shifts financial pressure during labor negotiations onto employees and their unions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to preserve UI Trust Fund solvency by excluding income replacement for work stoppages initiated by employees, while maintaining support for employer-initiated lockouts. This distinction aligns with traditional labor law frameworks that treat voluntary employee work refusals differently from involuntary employer-imposed shutdowns.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Lose UI eligibility for any week their unemployment is tied to an active labor dispute, forcing reliance on personal savings or union strike funds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gain bargaining leverage as the financial cost of prolonged strikes shifts entirely to workers; no longer face UI tax impacts from paying out strike benefits.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have had to adjudicate separation claims strictly against a new blanket labor dispute disqualification standard, increasing scrutiny on whether separations qualify for lockout or layoff exceptions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Experiences reduced claim payouts and administrative processing costs related to strike eligibility determinations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Eligibility & Access: Workers would have had to prove their unemployment is not due to a labor dispute in active progress to qualify, raising the evidentiary bar for those caught in overlapping disputes or partial work stoppages.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Obligations & Behavior: Unions would have likelied need to expand strike fund reserves; employers might have faced increased pressure to negotiate quickly to avoid prolonged disputes that strain worker finances but do not trigger UI payouts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Enforcement & Risk: OED adjudicators would have had to carefully distinguish between active strikes, temporary work refusals, and lawful safety shutdowns. Misclassification risks would have rised, potentially increasing appeal volumes and litigation over the definition of active progress.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Neutral laid-off workers
Potential effect if enacted: A worker laid off during a strike who meets the strict non-participation criteria in ORS 657.200(3)(b) and (4)(a) successfully secures UI benefits, maintaining household stability while remaining neutral in the labor dispute.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Prolonged strikers
Potential effect if enacted: Workers engaged in a multi-year lawful strike over workplace safety exhaust all personal and union resources within weeks, facing immediate eviction, loss of healthcare coverage, and forced return to work under unfavorable terms due to the complete absence of state fallback income support.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
The statutory language ties disqualification strictly to a director's finding of an active labor dispute, creating a factual threshold that could have been manipulated through investigative discretion or employer reporting without clear administrative guardrails.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades income stabilization for workers engaged in lawful collective action against fiscal conservation of the UI Trust Fund and increased employer leverage in labor negotiations. Upsides include preserved fund solvency, reduced administrative costs for strike claims, and alignment with traditional labor law distinctions between strikes and lockouts. Downsides include heightened economic vulnerability for striking employees, potential suppression of bargaining power, and increased adjudicative complexity around dispute classification.
Potential effect if enacted: Preserves UI Trust Fund solvency by eliminating payouts for employee-initiated work stoppages.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have reduced administrative costs and appeal burdens associated with strike eligibility determinations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Aligns Oregon statute with traditional labor law principles that distinguish between voluntary employee work refusals and involuntary employer-imposed shutdowns.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have removed a critical financial buffer for striking workers, increasing risk of homelessness and loss of healthcare coverage during prolonged disputes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts bargaining power significantly toward employers by allowing them to endure work stoppages without UI cost exposure.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Increases adjudicative complexity and litigation risk around defining active labor disputes versus other separation types.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text explicitly repeals strike benefit eligibility, amends related definitions and overpayment rules, and retains lockout benefits. The statutory language is unambiguous regarding the removal of UI access for active labor disputes. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
4 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only adopted text; no qualifying adopted replacement is shown.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only adopted text; no qualifying adopted replacement is shown.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 657.200 is amended to read: 6 657.200. [(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter relating to availability for work, ac- 7 tively seeking work or refusal to accept suitable work, an individual who is otherwise eligible for 8 benefits is not disqualified for benef”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 657.200 is amended to read: 6 657.200. [(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter relating to availability for work, ac- 7 tively seeking work or refusal to accept suitable work, an individual who is otherwise eligible for 8 benefits is not disqualified for benef”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
Only the original repeal proposal is in the packet.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 657.200 is amended to read: 6 657.200. [(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter relating to availability for work, ac- 7 tively seeking work or refusal to accept suitable work, an individual w”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Alek Skarlatos, Representative Lucetta Elmer
Regular sponsors: Representative Court Boice, Representative Darcey Edwards, Representative Darin Harbick, Representative Bobby Levy, Representative Rick Lewis, Representative Anna Scharf, Senator David Brock Smith, Representative Emily McIntire, Representative Jami Cate
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
4 events
Full timeline
4 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Referred to Labor and Workforce Development.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
unemployed due to an active strike. (Flesch Readability Score: 69.6). Repeals Enrolled Senate Bill 916 (2025), which authorized unemployment insurance benefits for individuals who a
“Repeals Enrolled Senate Bill 916 (2025), which authorized unemployment insurance benefits for individuals who are unemployed due to a strike.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.