Oregon lawmakers could bring more iron and steel manufacturing stateside. Building on requirements to buy from American manufacturers in last year's infrastructure law, Oregon legislation would require iron and steel from the United States for public construction projects.

Lorne Bulling, political coordinator for Ironworkers Local 29 in Oregon said the measure will cut down on the amount imported iron and steel coming into the country.

"We really see this as a coalition between labor and environmental groups as we fight for American jobs and a better focus on American and domestic manufacturing," Bulling said.

Opponents of the measure say it will lead to higher costs for public projects. House Bill 3332 has bipartisan sponsors in Salem. It passed out of the House Committee on Business and Labor and is currently in the Ways and Means Committee.

Ron Rodgers, Sub-District 3 director of United Steelworkers District 12, which covers the Northwest, said a measure such as House Bill 3332 would have helped local steel facilities on recent projects, such as a highway bypass near Newberg.

"We could have saved a lot of money on transportation costs," he explained. "The tax dollars would have stayed in the Oregon economy versus importing steel from out of country where we get no tax dollar benefit from the workers whatsoever. And, frankly, it was made a lot cleaner than any processes you're going to see out of China or other imported steel countries."

Ranfis Villatoro, Oregon policy manager for the Blue-Green Alliance, said this legislation compliments the infrastructure law's incentives for buying U.S. made goods.

"By passing 'buy America' legislation now in Oregon, we're taking advantage of and leveraging historical investments and saying, 'Hey, we as Oregon want to be a leader in manufacturing and we're going to also leverage our public spending to align with this historical investment to shore up manufacturing,' " he said.


get more stories like this via email

The National Labor Relations Board recently issued a rule change that may have wide-ranging impacts for workers and businesses.

The update to the joint employer rule would require parent companies to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employees even when using a staffing agency or subcontractor.

It also means franchisors and franchisees can both be held liable for unfair labor practices.

This replaces a Trump-era rule change that made it easier for companies to avoid a finding of joint-employer status.

Brian Petruska - general counsel with the mid-Atlantic regional organizing coalition of the Laborer's International Union of North America - said the rule change is a win for workers.

"It means that the employees' right to organize still is meaningful," said Petruska, "even in this modern world we live in with layers and layers of LLCs and corporations who are now defining the workspace."

The rule change now faces legal challenges including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed suit against the board in federal court.

In a statement on its website, the Chamber says the rule change will "create chaos and more legal confusion that will harm both employers and workers."

The NLRB rule establishes that two or more entities may be considered joint employers of a group of employees when more than one entity possesses the authority to control employees' essential terms and conditions of employment.

The board says this change is more in line with established common-law agency principles.

Petruska said he sees opposition to the updated rule coming from a number of industries including restaurants, construction and hotels.

He also said the franchise business model will no longer insulate the parent company from labor issues.

"Now," said Petruska, "the fact that they have that control may cause them to be embroiled in local labor disputes that the franchisees are having with their employees."

The new rule will go into effect next February.

States such as Minnesota have seen a tidal wave of union organizing amid public support to improve pay and workplace conditions.

However, labor leaders acknowledge the slow growth of membership, prompting questions about the movement's future.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says nationwide, the number of union jobs last year increased by nearly 2%, but the actual membership rate declined to 10.1%.

In a recent University of Minnesota panel discussion, Bernie Burnham -- president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO -- said the dynamics of organizing have changed, including smaller groups of employees pursuing contracts.

"Like in retail, there are a lot of places that use self-checkout," said Burnham. "So there are less workers in these stores and they're not going the traditional route, the old-school route of joining these bigger bodies that are the bigger unions."

Despite the differences, she suggests there's a lot of energy among the newer voices.

The experts added that corporations are taking a harder line on organizing and that under most laws, it's hard to enforce "anti-union" messaging.

Minnesota recently bolstered its laws, but some panelists noted most workers today don't come from a union household and could use more education and awareness.

Kathy Megarry, vice president for human resources and labor relations with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, suggested there are workers who want to see more value in the dues that are required.

"I have seen unions make actual political changes in terms of how they service their members," said Megarry, "put more money towards organizing, less money to servicing their members. That's a strategy. But then when you do not service your members well, I've seen that hurt some unions, not all."

She said that can be a hindrance for workers who sympathize with the cause but aren't ready to sign up for a union.

Meanwhile, the panelists said they see hope for more diversity within organized labor amid a shift from older white males leading organizing efforts.

They said having more women and people of color taking charge can potentially help with recruitment.

Pennsylvania needs more economic opportunities and a new report from the Keystone Research Center showed federal investments in climate and infrastructure projects would help grow a skilled construction workforce.

Diana Polson, senior policy analyst at the center, said the report revealed federal money would create thousands of trade jobs through expanding union construction apprenticeships leading to quality careers, as electricians, operating engineers, carpenters, and laborers.

"In Pennsylvania, for example, these apprenticeships train workers for jobs that pay more than most college-educated workers earn, and 61% more than the average worker in Pennsylvania," Polson pointed out. "Significantly, this training comes without any student debt."

Polson added Gov. Josh Shapiro wants to use 3% of the federal funds from recently signed climate and infrastructure laws to expand workforce development and apprenticeships. Shapiro's 2023-24 budget includes $6 million for the effort.

Polson noted President Joe Biden's Good Jobs Initiative seeks to embed job quality and equity incentives into the federal funding, to make sure apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeships benefit underserved communities. She called it a huge win all around, for the state, climate, for those communities, and taxpayers.

"We had shared this in the report, research has shown that for every dollar invested in apprenticeship $35 is returned to the government in higher tax collections, or reduced expenditures on public assistance or unemployment over the career of an apprentice," Polson emphasized. "These are huge returns on investments."

Keystone Research Center said the resources will lead to high-wage union construction careers. The center is holding a webinar today at 1 p.m. on construction apprenticeship programs in coal country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.