OTA Dispatch Issue 3 2019

19 www.ortrucking.org Issue 3 | 2019 to react and think that “we need to do something here in Oregon.” They point to ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft, who blur the lines between contractor and employee, as well as construction trades and some trucking companies. The bill would have re-defined an independent contractor as a person who “does not provide services that are within the usual course of the other person’s business.” We formed a broad coalition to oppose the bill, and the larger our tent became the more clearly lawmakers could see that they were biting off more than they could chew. Even small, minor changes to independent contractor law could have a ripple effect on broad spectrum of Oregon businesses including truckers, medical professionals, hair-dressers, accountants, lawyers, in- home caregivers, plumbers, engineers, travel agents, taxicab operators, pharmacists, and many others. They were unable to land on a solution this session, but their motivations are largely unchanged. HB 2005 passed this session, establishing a paid family and medical leave program in Oregon. It allows employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid family, medical, or safe leave and receive compensation while away. The program is funded by shared employer-employee payroll contributions, and employers with less than 25 employees are exempt from contributing to the program. HB 2005 appears to be the least- damaging version of paid family leave bills proposed this session. By comparison, HB 3031 proposed 32 weeks of paid leave. Other measures placed the responsibility of funding the program squarely on employers. Regardless, the new program places an additional cost on all Oregon companies and is one of the more burdensome labor bills passed this session. Senate Bill 379 would have required all Oregon employers to allow their employees to use “any lawful substance.” Doing otherwise or taking corrective action against an employee for this lawful use would be an unlawful employment practice. This would obviously create conflict between Oregon’s recreational marijuana program and the federal prohibition of the substance. Proponents of the bill worked to carve out trucking operations given the myriad of overlapping state and federal prohibitions on marijuana use for CDL holders, but they could not find a path forward and after several hearings and multiple workgroup meetings, the effort ran out of steam. Curiously, the same lawmakers behind SB 379 also brought forward another seemingly contradictory bill this session in the form of SB 965 , otherwise known as the “any drug” bill. This bill would have added a new category of “intoxicants” to Oregon’s DUII law. Ordinarily, a driver is subject to DUII if they are under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, inhalants, or cannabis. SB 965 would have added a very broad list of “drugs” which would have included virtually any non-food substance that could alter the human body. If combined with alcohol or another intoxicant in any amount, these other “drugs” would result in a per se DUII arrest. Criminalizing non- impairing substances like antacids and antihistamines is a very slippery slope, and one that could have impacted all CDL holders operating in Oregon. The “any drug” bill did not move forward, but these two bills demonstrate the regulatory tightrope the trucking industry must walk in order to maintain fair workplace policies while complying with overlapping federal, state, and local laws. Environmental legislation took center stage this session, especially toward the end. Two bills posed substantial threats to the trucking industry through the regulation of diesel engines ( HB 2007 ) and the creation of a new greenhouse gas regulatory program known as “cap and trade” ( HB 2020 ). Many of the players involved in these two bills were the same, but the results were very, very different. When first introduced, House Bill 2007 was one of the most aggressive and burdensome diesel engine regulation bills ever drafted in Oregon. It looked like something drafted for California, minus most of the incentive funding. It is important to note that for years, lawmakers struggled to impose strong engine regulations in Oregon because Oregon does not provide incentives like neighboring Washington and California. Then, Volkswagen changed everything when they sold diesel passenger cars rigged with emission defeat devices from 2009 to 2015. The resulting master settlement required Volkswagen to pay $2.9 billion to a trust fund divided