Oregon Pay Stub Requirements in 2026: SB 906 Notice and Code Guide

Oregon employers must provide an itemized statement when they pay employees. Since January 1, 2026, SB 906 also requires a written explanation of earnings and deductions at hire, with the information reviewed and updated by January 1 each year. The explanation helps employees understand payroll terminology; it does not replace the actual pay stub or authorize a deduction. Oregon BOLI’s legislative update confirms the effective date and the new notice obligation.

This guide covers Oregon pay-stub requirements as reviewed October 7, 2026. It separates the legal requirements from suggested payroll controls, supplies an original glossary example, and checks selected state contributions. It is general information, not a determination of an individual employer’s compliance. Other jurisdictions and specialized employment arrangements need their own review.

Oregon SB 906: one explanation, recurring pay statements

The explanation describes the payroll system; a pay stub reports a particular payment. An employee needs both the meaning of a code and the amount actually applied. A glossary can explain “PLO-EE,” but only the payment record can show what was withheld on the current payday.

The enrolled 2025 SB 906 added the explanation requirement to ORS 652.610. Its scope should not be confused with posting a salary range in a job advertisement. This is transparency about earnings and deductions on employee statements.

The statute’s statement provision reaches employers with at least one person employed in Oregon during a calendar month, includes state and local government, and excludes the federal government and its agencies. Salary alone does not remove a worker from statement requirements. Questions about a remote worker, disputed employee status, or overlapping states should go to BOLI or an adviser who can examine the actual work arrangement. Do not decide coverage solely from the employer’s mailing address.

What must an Oregon itemized pay statement contain?

Use the actual payment’s details, not a generic list of possible deductions. ORS 652.610(1) calls for the payment date, covered work dates, employee identity, employer name and business registry or identification number, employer address and phone, pay rates and pay basis, gross and net wages, each deduction’s amount and purpose, and applicable minimum-wage allowances.

Regular and overtime rates, hours, and corresponding pay must be shown unless the employee is both salaried and overtime-exempt under the relevant law. Piece-rate work requires the rate, pieces at each rate, and associated pay. A label such as “salary” or “production pay” cannot substitute for the necessary breakdown.

Practical review starts with the dates. The period when work occurred and the date money was paid answer different questions. Check that the employee’s time record falls within the stated work period, while the deposit corresponds to the stated payment date. A corrected or off-cycle payment also needs the proper statement; direct deposit is not the statement itself.

Next, follow each amount to a source. Compare hours with approved time, rates with the employment agreement or approved change, benefit deductions with the election and applicable plan, and payment allocation with the payroll register. Our source-record checklist helps assemble that evidence. Use the salary and hourly earnings guide when a pay basis is unclear.

A compact layout is acceptable only if the information remains understandable. For example, collapsing five distinct deductions into “other: $94” prevents a reader from tracing the separate purposes. A clear glossary is helpful, but should not be used to omit the deduction amounts and purposes required on the statement itself.

What information belongs in the SB 906 explanation?

Cover the employer’s real payroll vocabulary comprehensively. The new subsection 652.610(5) in SB 906 requires the regular pay period; eligible rate types; benefit deductions and contributions; possible deduction types and their purposes; minimum-wage allowances; employer benefits appearing as contributions or deductions; and definitions of payroll codes for rates and deductions. Lists and tables can be used; complete sentences are not mandatory.

That does not mean every listed item belongs on every employee’s current paycheck. A commission code may be part of the employer’s vocabulary even when one worker receives only hourly pay. Explain applicability so a new employee does not mistake a list of possible items for a promise of every benefit or permission for every deduction.

Build the explanation from the payroll configuration, then test it against actual statements. Include active codes that appear infrequently, such as an annual benefit adjustment or a seasonal differential. Group them into earnings, employee deductions, and employer contributions. The groups help readers recognize whether an amount increases wages, reduces cash pay, or simply reports an employer cost.

For each entry, a useful description answers three practical questions: what does this code mean, when might it apply, and what source determines the amount? Those are suggested writing checks, not an additional statutory format. “MED = medical” would be especially ambiguous if the system uses MED for Medicare tax and a separate code for health insurance.

Where no minimum-wage allowance is used, say so in the employer’s explanation rather than inserting a fictional amount. If an allowance is used, get its legal treatment checked. A convenient template cannot decide whether a particular allowance is permissible.

How should employers deliver the notice and maintain it?

Make the explanation easily accessible at hire, then maintain the information employees use. BOLI’s SB 906 guidance describes paper delivery, an accessible posted document, electronic information, and a link to the employer’s server or website. It also confirms the January 1 annual review-and-update requirement.

An onboarding packet might identify the exact document name, its location, a payroll contact, and the version date. A portal can work well when employees can actually open the file. Test permissions with an ordinary employee account, including access away from a manager’s computer. An unexplained link requiring unavailable credentials is a poor delivery process.

For an established workforce, keeping the shared information available and bringing code changes to employees’ attention is a sensible control. The reviewed law describes the explanation as due at hire; it does not establish a blanket 14-day-on-request grace period for this notice. Do not postpone new-hire access because a summary elsewhere mentions 14 days.

Is an electronic pay stub subject to the same delivery rule?

No. The general electronic-statement rule separately requires the employee’s express agreement and the ability to print or store the statement upon receipt. BOLI explains those conditions on its paycheck deductions and itemized-statement page. Special provisions apply to employees paid through the state payroll system. Permission to post a general glossary does not permit posting employees’ private pay statements in a common area.

How can the January 1 review be organized?

Assign a payroll owner, compare the glossary with active codes and benefit arrangements, verify current rates against the administering agencies, and record the result. As of this article’s October 2026 review, the next annual checkpoint is January 1, 2027. Do not publish guessed 2027 figures just to finish early.

Annual review is a minimum maintenance checkpoint. When a new code enters use during the year, promptly explaining it helps keep the notice useful. Preserve the previous version and note what changed. Version history and delivery records are recommended evidence controls; this article does not present a signature receipt as an express SB 906 requirement.

An original example of a usable payroll code glossary

The following entries are fictional examples, not Oregon-issued abbreviations or a complete compliance notice. Replace them with the employer’s actual codes and arrangements. This extract does not supply the employer’s complete rate list, schedule, allowances, or all applicable deductions.

“OT” illustrates why definitions matter. Some systems show full overtime earnings; others pay straight time for all hours and add only a premium line. The code description must explain the employer’s method. A reader should not add the same base earnings twice. Our multiple-rate earnings guide explains why the underlying breakdown matters.

BOLI links customizable English and Spanish notice templates. Begin with the current official model, then reconcile it with the employer’s actual payroll. Retaining a code that the business never uses can confuse staff; leaving out an active code can make the explanation incomplete. A copied glossary from another employer is not a substitute for this review.

Keep legal authorization separate from description. An entry explaining “equipment recovery” would not make that deduction lawful. BOLI states that payroll deductions cannot be taken for required tools, till shortages, or employee-caused property damage, and that signing an authorization does not validate a prohibited deduction. Consult its deduction guidance for the specific situation.

A checked 2026 example: employee deductions versus employer costs

Employer contributions should not be subtracted from employee net pay merely because they appear on the statement. Consider a fictional employee with $1,800 of wages subject to both Paid Leave Oregon contributions and Statewide Transit Tax in a 2026 payment.

Assume the employee is below the annual Paid Leave wage limit, is covered by the state plan, pays the full employee share, and works for an employer required to pay the ordinary employer share. No employer pickup of the employee contribution is assumed. These calculations isolate selected state items; they are not a complete Oregon paycheck or tax estimate.

The Oregon Employment Department’s 2026 rate page lists a 1% total Paid Leave contribution rate on subject wages up to $184,500 per employee. Paid Leave Oregon’s funding explanation allocates 60% of that rate to employees and 40% to employers with at least 25 employees on average, subject to the small-employer rules. Employers may choose to cover some or all of an employee’s share.

The Oregon Department of Revenue’s current Statewide Transit Tax page instructs employers to continue withholding at 0.1%, or 0.001. Therefore $1,800 × 0.001 equals $1.80. Do not confuse 0.1% with 1%, or substitute an old announcement of a proposed increase for the current agency instruction.

The two employee amounts total $12.60. The employer’s $7.20 Paid Leave amount is a separate cost in this scenario, not a third employee deduction. The remaining cash cannot be called “net pay” after subtracting just these two items: federal and state income-tax withholding, FICA, other applicable Oregon assessments, local obligations, and elected benefits have not been calculated here. Our net-pay reconciliation guide covers that larger calculation.

Small employers generally are not required to pay the employer Paid Leave share, although assistance-grant conditions can change that position; employee contributions still need attention. Equivalent plans and employer-paid employee shares also require the correct explanation. Follow Paid Leave Oregon’s rules rather than applying this fictional employer’s setup universally.

Statewide Transit Tax is also distinct from employer transit-district payroll taxes. The 2026 combined payroll instructions discuss the separate programs. A generic “transit” label makes it harder to verify whose tax is being shown. Identify the exact program and wage base before checking a percentage.

How do you review the notice and resolve a mismatch?

A useful audit follows one real employee payment from the approved records to the statement and then to the explanation. Ask a reviewer who did not configure payroll to trace each unfamiliar code. The goal is to identify missing context, not merely to confirm that the PDF opens.

1. Inventory the live codes. Export or list earnings, benefits, employee deductions, and employer contributions, including less frequent items.
2. Compare the written meanings. Check that each active code has a clear description, applicable conditions, and consistent employee-versus-employer treatment.
3. Check the actual statement fields. Verify names, dates, pay basis, required rate/hour details, gross, individual deductions, and net using the supporting records.
4. Confirm access. Test the onboarding link or posted location and the separate electronic-statement consent and print/store process where applicable.
5. Investigate discrepancies at their source. A vague definition calls for an explanation correction; a wrong wage or withholding amount calls for payroll review and any necessary payment/reporting correction.
6. Preserve a review trail. Keep the reviewed version, date, owner, identified changes, and evidence supporting corrected amounts. Schedule the employer’s own annual review without treating it as automatic blog publication.

An employee can make a specific request: “My statement dated [date] shows code PLO-ER as a reduction in net pay. Please explain the code, the wage base and rate, and whether it is an employer contribution or an employee deduction.” Attach only the relevant statement through an appropriate private channel. This is an example question, not an allegation that any particular employer withheld incorrectly.

If more evidence is needed, BOLI’s employee-record access guidance discusses access to covered records and the 45-day production period. That record-request rule is separate from providing a notice at hire or a statement with a payment. Keep dates and copies of requests; contact BOLI if access or a wage issue remains unresolved.

For a preparer using GeneratePayStub, accurate source inputs and a suitable statement layout are only part of the workflow. An employer-specific explanation, lawful deduction authority, and accessible delivery still need attention. The state-template review guide helps evaluate required fields; the worked payroll example shows how a statement can be reconciled to real payroll inputs. Neither guide certifies an individual Oregon employer’s compliance.

Penalties and common Oregon pay-stub questions

What penalty does SB 906 provide?

ORS 652.900(1)(b) allows BOLI to assess a civil penalty of up to $500 for violating ORS 652.610(5) or an associated rule. That is discretionary statutory authority, not an automatic $500 payment to an employee or a promise about the result of a complaint. Other wage violations can involve separate rules and remedies.

Does a notice need to contain this employee’s exact deduction amounts?

The general notice explains the employer’s arrangements and code meanings. The employee’s actual statement must identify the deductions applied to that payment. Use the notice to explain terminology while keeping personal payment details in the individual record.

Can one generic national glossary cover an Oregon workplace?

Only if its content actually fits the employer and the applicable requirements. Review Oregon-specific programs, the complete live code list, delivery, and the statement fields. Do not assume a nationally branded template has examined the employer’s configuration.

Does adding a deduction to the glossary authorize it?

No. Disclosure and deduction authority are separate questions. Check the legal basis and applicable authorization before withholding; describing an unlawful item more clearly does not fix the underlying problem.

Does the annual review replace payday checks?

No. The annual checkpoint concerns the explanation. Each payment still needs accurate records and its own itemized statement. If the notice is current but the payment is wrong, correct the payment process; if the payment is right but the code is unclear, improve the explanation.