19 www.ortrucking.org Issue 3 | 2023 who deliver wine directly to consumers. The common carriers were clear that if they were included in the regulatory scheme considered in the bill, they would no longer deliver wine in Oregon. OTA’s lobby team worked to ensure that common carriers were exempted from the bill, since they have a fundamentally different business model than the thirdparty delivery services the bill seeks to regulate. Additionally, a coalition of grocers, distillers, breweries, wineries, delivery companies, and restaurants, pushed for amendments that narrowed the bill to put the onus entirely on the delivery companies to make sure drivers are licensed and insured and, most importantly, that they screen customers. The amended bill passed easily out of committees and out of both chambers and was sent to the governor for her signature. AGE DISCRIMINATION AARP introduced HB 2800 early in the session, which sought to eliminate age-based employment discrimination. More than 35 legislators sponsored the bill, which would have made it illegal for an employer to seek the age of applicant prior to completing an initial interview or making a conditional offer of employment. Further, any language that could have suggested a preference for an age range, such as asking for certain types and levels of experience or advanced degrees, could be subject to liability, and litigation could be brought under the bill’s private right-of-action. Especially with continued workforce shortages, adding higher risk and more difficulty to the hiring process was completely unworkable. In addition to the risk for businesses, the bill could also have put older and younger workers at risk of discrimination by not allowing for questions of experience on applications. The bill received one public hearing, but because of the outpouring of opposition and the infeasibility of the policy, the bill died at the first chamber deadline. PAYSTUB LANGUAGE AND OVERPAYMENT In 2022, the St. Charles Health System requested repayment after their payroll system overpaid employees over $2 million. Two nurses unions petitioned against the demand for reimbursement. Other unions aligned themselves with the effort, including the grocery workers union. This coalition brought HB 2556, which would have disallowed employers from recouping overpayments six months after the overpayment. It would have also added a requirement that an explanation, “stated in plain language,” be provided for every deduction on an employee’s pay stub. With no guidance from the state or clear definition of “plain language,” the bill’s ambiguity would have put employers at risk of liability for any perceived lack of clarity on a paystub. It is possible that even adding too much description of the deductions could have been an infraction. Additionally, the employee would have the option under the bill to choose not to agree to reimbursing for the overpayment. A business coalition presented these concerns, asking for a yearlong window for notice of overpayment, an example of an acceptable pay stub explanation, and clarification for recourse if an employee refuses to sign the agreement. Though these requests were not all met, the “plain language” requirement was amended out of the bill. The bill passed out of the committee and off the floor, largely along party lines. However, when it reached the Senate, once it became evident that this would have impacts on government workers, the committee decided not to move the bill forward. There has been no indication that this policy will be revived next session, but pay stub transparency as an issue may come back in the future. PAY RANGE DISCLOSUSURE SB 925 was introduced this year with the intention of creating more transparency in job applications. The bill would have made it an unlawful practice to advertise a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity without disclosing the pay range and employment benefits. The bill would have led to significant free speech issues and high risk of litigation with a private rightof-action. One public hearing was held, but the bill died upon the first chamber deadline.. Even with the historic walkout, OTA’s team in Salem spent many hours advocating on behalf of Oregon’s trucking industry, ensuring that our members had a voice at the table when decisions were being made impacting trucking.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==