Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unemployment Insurance Strikes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heard: bill to allow unemployment benefits for striking or locked-out workers draws broad testimony
Summary
Substitute Senate Bill 50-41 would allow some striking workers to receive unemployment insurance after two weeks and would remove disqualification for locked-out workers until a 2035 sunset; proponents said it would preserve workers' basic needs and bargaining leverage, opponents warned of fiscal and economic consequences for employers and the UI
The Labor & Workplace Standards Committee on March 18 heard substitute Senate Bill 50-41, which would modify Washington's unemployment insurance (UI) rules to allow certain striking workers to receive benefits and to remove the disqualification that currently bars benefits for locked-out workers; the bill includes a sunset provision ending the change on Dec. 31, 2035.
Committee staff described the bill as altering two disqualifications in current law. For strikes, the bill would permit striking workers to access benefits after the earlier of the second Sunday following the strike's start (if the strike is not later found to be unlawful) or the strike's termination, subject to a one-week waiting period and a 12-week cap on benefits tied to a strike. The Employment Security Department would recover overpayments if retroactive wages are later paid or a final judgment finds the strike unlawful. For lockouts, the bill would remove the disqualification and charge benefits to base-year employers; both provisions would expire on Dec. 31, 2035, and the department must report to the Legislature annually on strike prevalence and UI trust-fund impacts.
State Senator Marcus Richelli, the bill's sponsor, said the measure "will allow access to a social safety net for workers and their families by making sure employees still on strike after two weeks can access unemployment insurance so they can afford the basic needs like food and housing." He described strikes as a last resort and said the bill includes a sunset and study provisions intended as guardrails.
Labor and worker advocates testified in favor. April Sims, president of the Washington State Labor Council, said providing UI to strikers is consistent with the program's purpose and would help lower-wage workers sustain strikes to improve wages and conditions. Alexa Tapia of the National Employment Law Project told the committee the change would align Washington with other states; she said strikers receiving UI would account for under 1% of statewide UI expenditures in her estimate and cited New York and New Jersey as comparators that make benefits available after 14 days.
Several unions and workers described personal hardship when on strike. Tom Bosterman, a Starbucks barista and union member, said his shop faced a low company offer and that "it would take me a year to make what our CEO makes in one hour," describing the decision to strike as financially painful but necessary.
Business groups and employer associations urged rejection. Lindsey Huer of the Association of Washington Business said the UI trust fund and employers already face higher costs and that the bill would force employers to pay for benefits tied to labor disputes. Neil Stregi of the Washington Roundtable argued the measure could make strikes more frequent and longer, and Julia Gordon of the Washington Hospitality Association said it is inappropriate to make all employers cover the cost of a labor dispute in which they played no role.
Industry witnesses cited past strikes with broad ripple effects. Corey Shaw of the Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association described a 140-day 2021'22 concrete strike that he said delayed housing projects, led to layoffs at Sound Transit and WSDOT, and caused increased material costs; he urged the committee to consider broader economic impacts.
Questions from lawmakers focused on fiscal modeling, other-state experience and practical details. Employment Security Department staff present in earlier hearings said modeling indicates the bill would have modest fiscal effects in most scenarios but that assumptions matter; committee members asked the department for additional figures about rate impacts under different strike-frequency assumptions.
Why it matters: The bill would change who may receive UI and under what conditions, affecting workers' financial security during strikes, the experience-rating and financing of the UI trust fund, and bargaining dynamics between employers and labor.
Next steps: The committee took testimony from multiple panels pro and con and closed the hearing for the day with no vote. Members asked for additional fiscal and actuarial information from the Employment Security Department.
