Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor And Business.pay Differentials.asl topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears bill to require ASL included in public‑employee language pay differentials
Summary
A public hearing on Senate Bill 731 heard testimony that American Sign Language should be treated the same as other languages when public employers pay a differential for employees who use language skills on the job.
Senate Chair Taylor opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 731 on Jan. 28, 2025, saying the committee would hear and pass out one bill that day. The bill, carried to the committee by Senator Sarah Gelser Blouin, would require that when a public employer’s employment policies provide a pay differential for a public employee’s use of bilingual or multilingual skills in performing assigned duties, the policy must also provide a pay differential for an employee’s use of American Sign Language in performing assigned duties.
The measure matters to deaf and hard‑of‑hearing Oregonians and to public employees who use ASL in official duties. “This simply identifies and recognizes that American Sign Language is a second language,” Senator Sarah Gelser Blouin said during the hearing, noting that ASL interpretation can be difficult to access and that ASL should be treated “in equality with all other languages.”
Chad Ludwig, founder and executive director of Bridges Oregon, testified in support and described his organization’s experience. “We already have a language differential. . . . ASL is not included there,” Ludwig said, adding that Bridges Oregon provides assessments of signing skills and wanted to flag that potential conflict of interest and ask for transparency in implementation.
Committee members sought clarification that the bill covers pay differentials only when language skill is used as part of official duties, not as an automatic add‑on at hiring. Senator Gelser Blouin confirmed that language differentials apply when the skill “is enhancing your ability to do your work to be used in the official duties.” No amendments or subsequent referrals were reported at the Jan. 28 hearing. The committee closed the public hearing on SB 731 after testimony and moved on to other agenda items.
The hearing record shows supporters asking the committee to add ASL to existing language‑differential policies; there was no testimony in opposition on the record at this meeting. The measure remained at the public‑hearing stage at the end of the Jan. 28 session; the committee did not take a vote on SB 731 that day.
