HB 4089
Modifies the crime of theft of services to include partial payments.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
37%
Oppose
63%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill expands the crime of theft of services to include situations where employees or independent contractors receive only partial payments for their work. It directs state agencies to report wage theft, increases penalties for unlicensed contractors and the misuse of license numbers, and clarifies how the value of theft transactions is determined. The bill also strengthens protections for vulnerable individuals receiving support services by requiring criminal background checks for certain workers in residential facilities and home care settings.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Gregory Smith
James Manning Jr.
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of House Bill 4089 emphasize that the legislation strengthens enforcement against wage theft, holding accountable those who exploit workers. They argue that wage theft causes real harm to families and communities, resulting in significant financial losses for workers and the state. Proponents highlight the need for recalibrating employers' decisions about committing wage theft, with substantial financial penalties and jail time as consequences, to deter this persistent issue despite previous efforts. By supporting HB 4089, Oregon can promote accountability, protect families, and maintain a fair work environment, affirming its commitment to addressing the widespread problem of wage theft in the state.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of House Bill 4089 express concerns that the legislation will have far-reaching and unintended consequences for various industries in Oregon. They argue that the bill's broad definitions and sweeping changes could harm small businesses, independent contractors, and homeowners, potentially leading to severe penalties and increased liability for employers. Critics also contend that the lack of a public safety workgroup review process and inadequate consideration of stakeholder input may result in unforeseen negative impacts on the wine industry, agricultural economy, and overall state economy. Furthermore, opponents believe that the bill's punitive approach and unclear definitions could lead to confusion, increased costs, and undue burden on businesses, particularly those without in-house counsel or HR departments.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.