Last night, Portland City Council hosted a packed hearing on the Earned Sick Days proposal, which would require employers to provide sick leave for employees. It’s a big proposal, and there is–for very good reason–a lot of passion built into the issue.
According to reports, the testimony at the hearing was about 60%-40% in favor of the proposal, with the loudest opposition coming from just a few lobbyists for the Portland Business Alliance and the Grocers Association. According to Family Forward, there were about
75 27 people who testified in favor of the proposal.
(Update: Between the two hearings–Jan. 31 and March 7–there were a total of 102 supporters testifying and just 31 opponents.)
It’s moving forward to a full vote next week, and all indications are that it will be unanimous in favor.
So… how did the headline writers at the Oregonian decide to frame it?
“Despite critiques from business interests, Portland sick leave proposal moves forward.”
Not “After supportive testimony from dozens, Portland sick leave proposal moves forward.”
Not “Council signals support for sick leave bill after hearing.”
Not “Supporters outnumber opponents in sick leave testimony.”
But, “Despite critiques from business interests, Portland sick leave proposal moves forward.”
Would it surprise you to find out that the Oregonian editorial board has written in opposition to this proposal multiple times?
Would it surprise you to find out that the publisher of the Oregonian—N. Christian Anderson III–who has a very active role in the editorial board’s decisions, is on the board of the Portland Business Alliance?