[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6674860,"mediaKeyId","2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681","parentId",2260627,"title","Landscape Board Asks Committee to Close Workers‑comp Gap, Add Contract Protections for Renters and CCB‑licensed Water‑feature Work","audioSeconds",907,"startMs",4140000,"endMs",5047000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681&start=4140&end=5047","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681/thumbnail_4140000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6674860/Oregon/Landscape-Board-Asks-Committee-to-Close-Workerscomp-Gap-Add-Contract-Protections-for-Renters-and-CCBlicensed-Waterfeature-Work","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6674860-bdea935c467b2e45abd37f31e2ed211e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928926&Signature=RE-Sgpn8dQsZSzLI6ThttmNvke9uegzRS~LNJp5WVBQpA9BY08-a3VUt1qHsGViE2JhxcefAu8X8NNscJRSXrwAI4dAbzVfWUCNUyg37SyquBAiXAL33jwZ~VjoPNUbJ6aOrIdONJ8ymkUgTaKxm68ZNS15Ugg~b8rD0FVajmCpOsaK1RWEGhlGS6oTO-0n2YxRK~YXi-4--qjwfRpW-n~I780Da~u9v1VigU0THoUJzawD4ttEqPkWLCkymigpuSF~atds3Sh4k5kqJ4-~q79wVwlcFySadSGdukrCjTjL9vmbSu9GuIGsPQtlIvZAleFqAyPDUynlxpvS~o3ZZaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business heard from the State Landscape Contractors Board on Senate Bill 8 65 on Feb. 11. The board proposed three statutory changes: clarify when a landscape contractor is considered an independent contractor for workers’ compensation purposes, add an explicit exception allowing Construction Contractors Board (CCB) licensees to install ornamental water features, and extend the three-business-day contract rescission right to renters and others who contract with landscape licensees.

Annie Von Domits, the Landscape Contractors Board administrator, said the board discovered a statutory reference loop that created a gap: when licensees perform work allowed by exceptions in other statutes (for example, certain tree removal or irrigation tasks), the board could not require workers’ compensation coverage even when those workers were employed by the licensee. Von Domits told the committee the change would bring work performed under exceptions into the same independent-contractor definition and permit the board to require workers’ compensation when appropriate.

Von Domits also said the bill would add an explicit exception clarifying that CCB-licensed contractors can install ornamental water features and would correct an oversight in House Bill 2,292 (2023) by extending the existing three-business-day right to rescind a written landscape contract to renters and lessees, not only property owners.

Senator Hayden and others questioned how the workers’ compensation gap arose and how enforcement would proceed; Von Domits explained the legal reference loop forced the board to refer certain complaints to the Workers’ Compensation Division rather than to the LCB for licensing enforcement. Committee members requested clarifying language and examples of the gap and asked the board to return with any additional statutory cross-references and enforcement scenarios.

The committee closed the public hearing and left the bill at the public‑hearing stage pending follow-up drafting work from the board and potential amendments to clarify enforcement and scope.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Labor and Business 02/11/2025 (AM)","oneSentenceSummary","The State Landscape Contractors Board proposed three statutory fixes Feb. 11: close a workers’‑comp coverage gap when licensees perform exception work, allow CCB licensees to install ornamental water features, and extend the three‑business‑day contract rescission right to renters.","taxTitle","Labor and Business, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17989,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6674865,"Board Seeks Higher Bonds for Large Landscape Contracts; Committee Hears Consumer-Protection Case",271,4099000,4370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681&start=4099&end=4370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681/thumbnail_4099000.jpg","/articles/6674865/Oregon/Board-Seeks-Higher-Bonds-for-Large-Landscape-Contracts-Committee-Hears-Consumer-Protection-Case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6674865-1dd25124b625462ed67dca30479a4733/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928926&Signature=NOXZMQOmUs9HgT6VvDPDdPev-HH8WbOjCFuGmn5WT4aZOwPHOmyZWPsH~Sv6D6s5SHw0FreqkVaOEtHIwUpp0GBlA0Bvb7qN6tTVb8SboFoSxWsHra8sV6C5hTQ7p1lbH98cWcvOHf1Cyn1vw4eUeGhpN7s-yF5LMyTcADgzw7YoRtVmCxKfFkTsWNuoj6o8eNlKPpG5TiIraCjO6fWY20aCzJTr-rgERQpYihfSJETWJ3IgvtTE1obb9eJ1bAr2sX6~GZ3ZzUKMsOeJZbP1AryXSKvVtsygzu8kXhhWxhC0Tm5rygLGZankCsMGiDfR~s3sbyYyMOpZCqOiO5NEIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business heard testimony Feb. 11 from the State Landscape Contractors Board about Senate Bill 8 64, a measure that would restructure bond requirements for licensed landscape contracting businesses in Oregon.

Annie Von Domits, administrator for the Landscape Contractors Board, told the committee the board has seen an increase in complaints where contractors hold small bonds relative to the size of projects and, when multiple customers make claims, the bond must be split and provides little relief to each consumer.

Von Domits described an example in which a contractor held a $3,000 bond but had taken deposits from eight homeowners and performed no work; the small bond left multiple consumers partially or wholly uncompensated. The board recommended raising the standard bonding structure so a $20,000 bond would be required for jobs up to and including $100,000 and a $50,000 bond for any work over $100,000.

Von Domits told the committee the board consulted surety underwriters; licensees currently pay only a modest premium for the highest existing bond tier and the board’s research suggested the incremental annual cost for a $20,000 bond over a $3,000 bond is approximately $100 per year for many licensees, depending on credit and other underwriting factors. The board acknowledged that larger bonds (above $20,000) will produce a wider range of premiums that depend on the applicant’s creditworthiness and claims history.

No members of the public signed up to testify for or against SB 8 64 at the Feb. 11 hearing. Committee members asked staff and the board to gather more concrete pricing ranges for a $50,000 bond so the committee could assess the impact on small and emerging businesses if the higher bond tier is adopted. Chair Taylor closed the public hearing; the board’s representative said the board would provide additional information to the committee.

SB 8 64 remains at the public-hearing stage; the committee scheduled a potential follow-up work session and asked the board to report estimated surety costs for multiple underwriting scenarios.","The State Landscape Contractors Board asked the Senate Committee on Labor and Business Feb. 11 to raise bond amounts for landscape contractors so larger consumer claims would be covered more fully; the board proposed $20,000 bonds for jobs up to $100,000 and $50,000 for jobs above $100,000.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":80,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6674869,"Committee Hears Divided Testimony on Bill Allowing Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers",3557,542000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681&start=542&end=4099","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681/thumbnail_542000.jpg","/articles/6674869/Oregon/Committee-Hears-Divided-Testimony-on-Bill-Allowing-Unemployment-Benefits-for-Striking-Workers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6674869-73c8e1fa1e1e19cf40470f20a7c08c5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928926&Signature=es8-FZ~7UisVXIBl4IDehXyk8cUkhGxBbTsImScY6Qqgcnqf0ewMp0mOY38~T0eui1bklZC5yro3rjL3EkBF0nX-wXyt5ykDUteCLKnXPkkFl3tbRovLC094mCPCYXJIiOWSSommwgpvRJ4TzcZtoA9Z2WffCeZmNHFGu~pxKcqjXzMXI7M93dTF4ywdtQfwMz79qvTJ~6X2udTacix2WIRJHplD-LYrrMUPkVnkvcEPNPzGOuRWrrDQfL4-PHTK17aBMI8KNZGqq~ploYIAcpJohgvtPJPhkD39Nzc~cLaNzhi1rlxAmh1Fr627IxIl-5O6Vj8aQEjocFXWMZbgAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business held an extended public hearing Feb. 11 on Senate Bill 9 16, legislation to make striking workers eligible for unemployment insurance (UI) under specified conditions. Supporters said the change would help level bargaining power and protect workers and families; opponents said it would alter the purpose of UI, raise costs for employers and taxpayers, and could incentivize longer strikes.

Committee staff summarized the bill: it would amend existing law to specify that an otherwise-eligible individual is not disqualified from UI for any week the Employment Department director finds the individual unemployed because of a labor dispute at their place of work; the measure declares an emergency and is effective on passage, according to the summary read at the hearing.

Multiple labor and education unions, frontline health care workers and an economic research analyst urged the committee to support SB 9 16. Jenny Spinning, a nurse care manager at Providence and a member of the Oregon Nurses Association, said she and thousands of nurses are on strike and described personal financial hardship: “Providence is literally starving me out of house and home as I raise my voice to fight for patient safety,” Spinning said. Lindsay Ray, president of the Beaverton Education Association, said educators feared losing wages and that UI could allow members to stand up for contract terms without immediate destitution.

Union witnesses emphasized that strike funds typically do not replace full wages and that UI benefits are a partial replacement; Katie Tyson of the Oregon AFL-CIO said UI’s purpose includes protecting families after a loss of income and noted that UI is a partial wage-replacement program, not a full-pay substitute. Joe Basler, executive director of Oregon AFSCME, said strikes are difficult to organize and are “the absolute last resort” used to secure fair contracts.

Business groups and local chambers opposed the bill. Anthony Smith, Oregon State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, argued UI is intended for those who lose work “through no fault of their own” and warned that extending benefits to striking workers would increase unemployment insurance costs and shift expenses to employers and local taxpayers. Paloma Sparks of Oregon Business and Industry and Josh Tompkins of the Washington County Chamber raised similar concerns, warning the change could tip bargaining leverage and raise UI tax burdens for employers statewide.

Daniel Perez, an economic analyst with the Economic Policy Institute, presented modeling that estimated the fiscal impact would be small: EPI’s analysis found the bill would amount to roughly one-quarter of 1% of statewide UI expenditures under baseline assumptions and under a conservative, high-assumption scenario would remain under 1% of statewide UI expenditures. Perez also noted national and state data indicating most strikes are short: SB 9 16 requires a seven-day waiting period before a striking worker would be eligible for UI, and strike-tracker data show many strikes last fewer than a week.

Committee members pressed witnesses on costs and administration. Members asked whether UI benefits could be clawed back if an employer later negotiated back pay; committee staff said the bill operates within the existing UI system and that the agency would be asked Thursday to explain current administration and recoupment rules. Members also raised the role and sufficiency of union strike funds and whether a hybrid approach—share costs between unions and UI—would reduce employer impacts.

Chair Taylor announced an informational hearing for Thursday that will include the Employment Department director and unemployment insurance staff to review calculations, definitions (including labor-dispute language), and anticipated fiscal effects. The committee closed the public hearing Feb. 11 without taking a vote.

The bill remains under committee consideration; the committee asked staff to distribute comparative analyses of New Jersey and New York legislation that grants UI eligibility to some striking workers and to provide detailed actuarial estimates before further action.","Senate Bill 916 would allow workers on strike to collect unemployment insurance in some cases; the Senate Committee on Labor and Business held a lengthy public hearing Feb. 11 with extensive testimony for and against and scheduled further informational sessions with the Employment Department.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6674874,"Committee Hears Bill Letting Licensing Boards Count Experience Instead of High School Diploma",417,119000,536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681&start=119&end=536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260627-17dd13c85a3a52c0cab823443678b681/thumbnail_119000.jpg","/articles/6674874/Oregon/Committee-Hears-Bill-Letting-Licensing-Boards-Count-Experience-Instead-of-High-School-Diploma","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6674874-9f027d3254c79e89b7f8ca4634c88a9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770928926&Signature=mkJHtNzPJ3I66IfyFeLDrHfGJuunEBUkHNvi3S8DVBUE9738BUjgqQ~nUvEQx3KatJZ0Ft~2cIzuy9V4SMgdfY0L0BNOgGhOp9cDEqqVkAJWlg3okkgwupwTb7PrD0klhCfyfBFPNNVnQ1hZR0lGFemb98qc9DlWaaEqd1iv5p34xFZJQ5AkFxLURZvCwVVc87W-f9A86aPfi701KlIogCmH6aIBRL~252S6Eo5EKW6zyLAlhl7uVqnYmv59NF4xYRi-i3xoXOJOIY8muMKEAEP7zs9KQcQXa7qRxzctweRZNpb~USF8FCyeVQnqviaoAEOmy3IG5YdtGRQshK6a-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business opened a public hearing Feb. 11 on Senate Bill 13, a proposal from Sen. Kim Thatcher that would require professional licensing boards, where a high school diploma is currently required for licensure, to consider an applicant’s relevant work experience in lieu of that diploma.

Committee members and the bill’s sponsor said the measure is intended to reduce barriers to employment for people who have relevant experience but lack a formal high school credential.

Sen. Kim Thatcher, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the measure is “very low-hanging fruit” to “begin to unwind some of the barriers that are in place that allow people to work.” Thatcher cited past state action to deregulate hair-braiding as an example of removing unnecessary licensing burdens: “This is an effort to just continue the conversation of deregulating people's work, where it is not necessary for health and safety reasons.”

The committee asked for examples of occupations that might be affected; Thatcher said she did not have a definitive list and noted many Oregon occupations have licensure requirements that include a high school diploma. Chair Taylor and Vice Chair Bonham took no position at the hearing and the committee received no formal amendments.

The bill summary supplied at the hearing noted the measure “requires that a professional licensing board that regulates an occupation or professional service that requires up to a high school diploma or equivalent for licensure ... consider an applicant's relevant experience in lieu of the required education.” The summary also states the bill “becomes operative on 01/01/2026,” and includes language about effectiveness following adjournment; the transcript’s wording about the exact post-adjournment timing was unclear and will need clarification before final drafting.

No public testimony in favor or opposition was heard during the limited first hearing beyond the sponsor’s remarks and committee questions. Chair Taylor closed the public hearing without a committee vote and scheduled no immediate work session on the measure.

The committee noted the measure is narrow in scope and that Thatcher and others may consider amendments to broaden or refine the language to cover additional credentials or apprenticeship pathways.

Senate Bill 13 remains at the public hearing stage; committee staff did not record a recommendation or vote at this session.","Senate Bill 13 would require professional licensing boards that set high-school-diploma requirements to consider relevant work experience in place of that diploma for licensure; the bill received a public hearing during the Senate Committee on Labor and Business meeting on Feb. 11, 2025.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Landscape Board Asks Committee to Close Workers‑comp Gap, Add Contract Protections for Renters and CCB‑licensed Water‑feature Work

Board Seeks Higher Bonds for Large Landscape Contracts; Committee Hears Consumer-Protection Case

Committee Hears Divided Testimony on Bill Allowing Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers

Committee Hears Bill Letting Licensing Boards Count Experience Instead of High School Diploma