Bill would require hospitals to report spending on temporary replacement workers during strikes

Representative Travis Nelson opened the hearing on House Bill 2792, saying the measure would require hospitals to disclose spending on replacement workers used during strikes and lockouts.

"I've heard that replacement nurses can cost $10,000 a week or more," Nelson said. "If taxpayer dollars are funding these institutions, transparency into these questions should be a bare minimum expectation."

Supporters from multiple unions and worker organizations testified that hospitals that receive substantial public funding should be required to disclose how much they spend on recruiting, housing, transporting and paying temporary staff during labor disputes. Kathy Keane, chair of the bargaining unit at Providence St. Vincent’s Hospital, testified that Providence brought in thousands of temporary workers during recent strikes while claiming financial constraints in bargaining. "The public has a right to know how these resources are allocated," Keane said.

Ann Tam Piazza, executive director of the Oregon Nurses Association, said hospitals receive hundreds of millions in public funds via Medicare, Medicaid and other mechanisms and urged transparency. "What we do actually know about Oregon's largest hospital systems in managing their finances when workers are on strike? Not very much," she said.

Unions and advocates argued the reporting requirement is narrow: it would require hospitals to report recruitment, advertising and compensation costs tied to replacement staffing and related expenses (travel, housing, security). Supporters said the reports would allow lawmakers and the public to review how publicly funded providers allocate resources during labor disputes.

Hospital and business groups opposed the bill. Sean Colmer of the Hospital Association of Oregon said the measure "doesn't get anybody closer" to resolving labor disputes and said hospitals already face transparency requirements; he urged bargaining-level resolution. Paloma Sparks of Oregon Business & Industry and other employer witnesses argued the bill could chill settlement negotiations and warned against singling out employers responding to strikes.

Several witnesses said the bill is narrowly written as a reporting requirement and not a prohibition on hiring temporary staff. Union witnesses characterized the requirement as a modest transparency measure; employer witnesses called it an unnecessary intrusion into local bargaining and finance decisions.

The committee asked whether existing state reporting (to the Oregon Health Authority) already collects the requested information; hospital representatives said the specific line-item for replacement-worker costs is not currently required. Several committee members pressed witnesses on whether required reporting would interfere with bargaining. Sponsors said the purpose is transparency for public dollars, not to hinder negotiations.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing; testimony was recorded and the sponsor indicated willingness to discuss amendments and scope with stakeholders.