The House version of the bill is scheduled for an executive session on Jan. 19 to move the idea further along
Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center
A pair of bills moving in the Legislature would allow striking workers to receive unemployment benefits. House Bill 1893, and its companion bill Senate Bill 5777, would encourage more lengthy strikes and cost the unemployment insurance (UI) program. A fiscal note has been requested to estimate how much. Weakening this fund for employees it is set up for is harmful.
The unemployment insurance program in Washington state is socialized and funded by taxes on Washington state employers. It is set up to provide financial assistance to employees who lose work through no fault of their own, not people choosing not to work. Current law rightly says striking workers are disqualified from collecting unemployment UI benefits. The proposed legislation, however, would remove the disqualification. (There is an exemption for workers who choose not to participate in a strike.)
Even the background for this set of bills acknowledges that the UI program is set up to provide for workers who are separated from employment through no fault of their own and who are available to work and actively searching. As Bob Battles of the Association of Washington Business said in opposition to the bill at a House committee, “Strikes are not that.”
Those testifying in favor of the bill (led by usual labor leaders) say that workers, especially low-income ones, who choose to strike need a safety net. I say unions who push strikes should provide that safety net when it is needed with their members’ union dues, rather than punish all the state’s employers and workers who have nothing to do with a work negotiation that results in a work stoppage. Even the many employers in the state with happy workers will be penalized by a more costly UI system. In turn, their workers will be financially penalized for other workers’ decisions not to go to work.
As the president of the Washington State Labor Council, April Sims, said, “Strikes are a powerful tool.” Powerful tools cost money. It is not appropriate for the state to sharpen a tool for one side — labor — and contribute to an unfair playing field.
Hundreds signed in to testify on this controversial idea that could impact all workers in the state. The House version of the bill is scheduled for an executive session on Jan. 19 to move the idea further along.
Elizabeth Hovde is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Workers Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: Not a Good choice
Lars Larson argues that personal choices led to a deadly confrontation with law enforcement during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. - Opinion: ‘The IBR team has been lying to us and thanks to a veteran Oregon journalist, we have the smoking gun’
Ken Vance argues newly obtained documents show Interstate Bridge Replacement staff withheld updated cost estimates from lawmakers and the public. - Opinion: State CO2 report shows 86% of Washington’s claimed climate benefits are probably fake
Todd Myers argues a state climate report significantly overstates emissions reductions and raises concerns about data accuracy and accountability in Washington’s climate spending. - Opinion: Majority party policies still making life more expensive for Washingtonians
Rep. John Ley outlines his opposition to new taxes, raises concerns about state spending, and details legislation he plans to pursue during the 2026 Washington legislative session. - Opinion: What happens when you build a state budget on the most volatile tax sources?
Ryan Frost argues that relying on volatile tax sources like income and capital gains taxes risks destabilizing Washington’s budget and undermining long-term fiscal planning.
