Senate committee weighs bill to let striking workers collect unemployment benefits after two weeks

Senate Labor and Commerce Committee members heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 5041, a proposal to allow striking workers to receive unemployment insurance (UI) benefits after two weeks of striking and to remove a disqualification that currently bars locked‑out workers in multi‑employer bargaining units from receiving UI.

The bill, offered in substitute form with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026, would limit the disqualification for workers who strike so that benefits could begin no earlier than the second Sunday following the strike’s first day (unless a final judgment finds the strike was prohibited). It would also allow locked‑out multi‑employer workers to qualify for UI. A fiscal note has been requested but was not available at the hearing.

Why it matters: Supporters said the change would provide a modest safety net that could keep lower‑wage workers from being forced to end strikes for lack of food or housing, while opponents said the policy shifts costs to employers and risks lengthening strikes.

Sponsor and staff summary Senator Marcus Raccelli (R‑3, Spokane), prime sponsor, told the committee the bill would “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 basic needs like food and housing.” Committee staff explained the substitute adds a Jan. 1, 2026 effective date and described the statutory background for UI eligibility and the existing strike/lockout disqualifications.

Administration and technical issues Employment Security Department (ESD) staff described how benefits would be charged and recovered. Josh Dye, interim director of government relations at ESD, noted a conformity risk with U.S. Department of Labor guidance if a statute treated public‑sector and private‑sector strikes differently. Dan Zeiflin, ESD chief of staff, explained that reimbursable employers (for example, many public employers) would be billed directly for benefits paid to their separated workers, while contribution‑paying employers would see benefit charges to their individual experience rates.

Supporters’ testimony Unions and workers gave extended testimony in favor of the bill. Joe Kendall of the Washington State Labor Council said expanding UI in this narrow case would “offer modest wage replacement when workers are out of work” and argued the policy would silo costs to the struck employer through experience rating. Multiple workers who described having gone on strike testified about economic hardship; Pearl Johnson, a room attendant, said the strike forced her to rely on food banks and credit cards and that UI would have “made much more of a playing field.” Amy Traub of the National Employment Law Project testified that New York and New Jersey already offer similar benefits and that evidence does not show increased strike frequency when benefits are available.

Opponents’ testimony Business and industry groups urged rejection. Patrick Connor of the NFIB (representing small businesses) warned that employers already face high unemployment costs and said small businesses could be forced to shoulder higher social tax rates. Amber Carter of the Washington Retail Association and others argued the bill could disincentivize timely resolution and harm local storefronts. Industry witnesses representing construction, concrete and ready‑mix suppliers described prior long strikes and argued the measure could increase infrastructure delays and costs; Corrie Shaw of the Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association said a 2021 concrete strike caused “incredible ripple effects” including layoffs and project delays.

Committee exchanges and implementation questions Members asked ESD about who would pay for benefits in public‑sector strikes and whether the federal UI system rules would be implicated. ESD staff said reimbursable employers (for example, a state department or a school district) would reimburse the agency for benefits it paid. Sponsors said they were open to technical fixes; the substitute’s Jan. 1, 2026 effective date was presented in part to give agencies and employers implementation time.

Public participation and scope of testimony Chair Rebecca Saldanha noted very large public interest in the bill: she reported 1,283 pro sign‑ins and 1,196 con sign‑ins submitted for the record and that 12 pro witnesses and 27 con witnesses testified in person or remotely during the hearing.

What’s next No vote was recorded at the hearing. Committee staff and sponsors requested a fiscal note and asked ESD for implementation details before further action. The bill remains subject to amendment and additional technical edits.