Elizabeth New (Hovde) says the state needs to protect the UI fund from this harmful law as best we can for Washington state workers
Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center
Striking workers need to be made aware of some of the fine print involved in their ability to accept strike pay from the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) fund.
The fund is financed by employers and meant for workers who lose work through no fault of their own. But because the legislative majority passed Senate Bill 5041 this year, the ability to use the fund while choosing not to work, in addition to losing work, begins in January 2026. The new law allowing pay to striking workers also applies to private and public employees.
The fine print? If a striking worker is paid his or her usual pay — at the time or retroactively, as educators often are — applying for and accepting money from the state’s UI fund results in an overpayment the worker is expected to repay.
The trouble for taxpayers who pay the wages of public employees is that overpayments aren’t always recouped. That’s also trouble for all the workers in our state who rely on a strong UI fund to get through job loss.
When I checked with the Employment Security Department earlier this year, estimates show the state recoups less than 50 percent of overpayments now. This new law could be costly for private employers and Washington taxpayers.
In a recent listening session with the Employment Security Department, I raised the possibility that the new law’s UI access for striking workers could result in double payments for public workers. I am hopeful the department will set up a process to clearly inform UI applicants of the expectation that they not take wages from the UI fund if they will be receiving their usual pay. Someone has to. Making them aware that public strikes are prohibited in Washington state would also be valuable.
Wrong use of employer-funded worker protection
Striking workers do not lose work through no fault of their own. They choose not to work in hopes of gaining more from their employers or because they are pressured to strike by fellow workers or a union. (Sometimes Washington state taxpayers are the employer.) And when Senate Bill 5041 passed at big labor’s request this year, the protective fund for workers, financed by employers, was made responsible for financially aiding striking workers. Never mind that striking workers often have a union that should be offering strike pay to their members with dues that members pay and the union collects.
By the way, if a union does decide to give its striking workers some pay while on strike, workers can still receive UI benefits. That is not considered an overpayment. It also means it’s possible that a replacement wage made up of money from both the UI fund and a union payment could make striking a comfortable place financially until worker demands are met.
This law tilts negotiations further in favor of unions at the expense of employers who provide workers a livelihood and a UI fund that comes to workers’ rescue in cases of business downturns or economic crises — or when businesses are shut down by lawmakers in a health crisis.
The state needs to protect the UI fund from this harmful law as best we can for Washington state workers. Warning public employees that taxpayers aren’t on the hook for their salaries and money from the UI fund at the same time is imperative.
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:
- Letter: ‘Hockinson is worth investing in, and this levy is part of that commitment’
James Landon argues that supporting the Hockinson Schools levy is a necessary investment in the community, its schools, and the next generation. - Letter: PDX activists flood Clark County Council over anti-ICE resolution
Rob Anderson argues that organized Portland-based activist groups dominated public comment at a Clark County Council meeting to pressure councilors over an anti-ICE resolution. - Opinion: Moving the ball down the field
Nancy Churchill argues that while HB 2221 will not advance this session, the public hearing marked meaningful progress by opening dialogue, building relationships, and advancing science-based wildlife management discussions in Olympia. - Opinion: Washington’s proposed income tax – driving businesses and jobs out of the state
Mark Harmsworth argues that Washington’s proposed income tax would undermine the state’s economy by driving businesses, investment, and jobs elsewhere. - Opinion: Let’s use the truancy laws to send a message to schools
Lars Larson argues that truancy laws should be enforced when schools allow or encourage students to miss class for political protests.
