Senate Bill 5041 is this year’s effort to give employer-provided UI benefits to people who choose not to work while demanding higher pay and/or different working conditions
Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center
It’s ba-aaack. As promised. A slew of legislators want the state to give unemployment insurance (UI) benefits to striking workers. Never mind that a seven-week Boeing strike, involving more than 33,000 machinists, showed lawmakers what could happen to a fund meant for workers who lose work through no fault of their own in 2024. And never mind that employers should not be required to pay people not to work.
Unions should — and some do — give partial wage replacement to their members when there is a strike. They can use the dues they take from employees on an ongoing basis for that. Labor interests and lawmakers should not expect employers to finance a strike fund.
Senate Bill 5041 is this year’s effort to give employer-provided UI benefits to people who choose not to work while demanding higher pay and/or different working conditions. A public hearing on the legislation has not been scheduled yet. I’ll keep watch.
When the Legislature considered this idea last year, the Employment Security Department (ESD) prepared estimates for a variety of scenarios for providing UI benefits to striking workers. One of the scenarios was actually for a strike of roughly 30,000 workers using Boeing’s existing rate class and experience/social tax rate. With 30,000 workers receiving the maximum weekly benefit, the amount of benefits paid per week would be about $30.6 million. Since the bill would have allowed for four weeks of collection, this would have added up to more than $120,000,000. The fund dodged a Boeing-size bullet.
Sponsored by Sen. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, and cosponsored by 12 other Democrats so far, SB 5041 is similar to last year’s House Bill 1893 and Senate Bill 5777. Those pieces of legislation had the support of nearly all Democrats but failed to pass in the Legislature’s final hours. As long as the strike is legal, union workers could receive unemployment benefits while actively on strike. (Public employee strikes are not legal, so teachers, who strike frequently, should not be able to receive unemployment insurance benefits when striking along with the taxpayer-provided pay they already receive even in years that they strike. I hope to see legislative talks clarify that this is so.)
Sen. Steven Conway, D-Tacoma, a strong proponent of employer-financed strike benefits, told NPR-station KNKX the bill would allow workers to access the benefits starting on the second Sunday after they begin withholding their labor and would be eligible for four weeks of benefits. (I do not see the limitation of four weeks in SB 5041, although that was how last year’s legislation ended up outlining the benefit allowance.)
Leading lawmakers in Washington state are optimistic about SB 5041’s passage. The rest of us should be concerned. Creating a strike fund on the backs of employers will no doubt increase the number of work stoppages in Washington state, creating disruption and money losses for businesses, workers and the state and bring potentially higher costs to consumers. Paying striking workers UI benefits would threaten funds for workers experiencing things such as economic downturns or COVID-19-related policies that shut down businesses.
Last legislative session, when some lawmakers were concerned paying striking workers would weaken the UI fund, supporters of the idea insisted the UI fund was healthy enough — right now — to take on the added payouts that this favor to unions would supply. But whether or not the fund would be able to handle weeks-long strikes of aerospace workers or baristas in green, if there is excess money, it should be returned to the employers fueling the fund or lower their future payroll taxes.
Add this to the list of other reasons a survey found that Washington state is one of the most difficult places to run a business: It ranked 46 out of 50 states.
This bill is extreme and could have expensive consequences.
Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
