Elizabeth New warns that Washingtons new strike pay law could result in costly overpayments from the unemployment insurance fund, urging transparency and protection for public resources.
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 states unemployment insurance (UI) fund.
Elizabeth New (Hovde), Washington Policy Center
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 states 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 arent always recouped. Thats 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 laws 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.
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 labors 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 its 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 arent 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.
-
Opinion: Workers who strike need to be warned double pay is a no-no Elizabeth New warns that Washingtons new strike pay law could result in costly overpayments from the unemployment insurance fund, urging transparency and protection for public resources. -
Letter: Jennifer has the common-sense values to make public schools better. We need a candidate like her Wynn Grcich voices support for Jennifer Heine-Withee in the Battle Ground School Board race, citing her common-sense values and ideas for improving schools without raising taxes. -
Letter: The era of decline is over A mayor who will fight for you Vancouver mayoral candidate Justin Forsman denounces Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogles leadership, citing debt, crime, and policy failures. He pledges to restore forums, cut taxes, and fight for community accountability. -
Opinion: Leaders doing a bang up job of making downtowns safe Lars Larson reflects on recent shootings and declining safety in downtown Portland and Seattle, citing violent crime, police defunding, and economic fallout as signs of leadership failure. -
Opinion: Reclaiming our forests Nancy Churchill argues the 2001 Roadless Rule harmed rural communities and forest health, and supports its repeal. She urges opposition to HR 3930, which would make the restrictions permanent.
