By Destiny A. Murphy (ORU)
The OSU 525 Jury Compensation Bill authored by Representative Young (OSU) is a bill that petitions for jurors to receive financial compensation by their place of employment while they provide jury duty for the state.
Also known as “The Fair Work, Fair Pay” bill, it further outlines that employees serving as jurors must notify their employers in a reasonable time, and the bill opposes employers discharging an employee or taking adverse action against an employee.
During a period of questions and caucusing in the House of Representatives, there would be many representatives that would pose questions, with some holding differing opinions and views on the subject matter, mainly regarding the source of the compensation. In a one-on-one, candid, interview with Representative Rodriguez (ORU), he referred to the bill as “anti-democratic,” indicating that it is unfair to burden employers by having them compensate employees for participating in civic duty. He noted that if the legislation was to pass in the House, it should be the responsibility of the state to provide compensation to jurors.
Similarly, in a separate interview with House Representative Flickinger (OSU), she agreed with the sentiment that jurors should receive compensation, however, she noted that the bill did contain “holes,” raising the question “why should the employers have to pay you if you’re not doing your work?” She further indicated that having the government assist persons would be helpful. Representative Flickinger also referenced non-traditional jobs such as babysitting and walking a dog; jobs that are out of the scope of a nine to five, and jobs that can in many ways risk compensation.
Even with the “loopholes” and “anti-democratic” views as expressed by two fellow representatives of the house, along with the differing opinions regarding the nature of this bill, “The Fair Work, Fair Pay” Bill ultimately passed in the House of Representatives.