Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are examining proposals that would allow striking workers to receive unemployment benefits, in light of recent strikes by various groups including Boeing factory workers, nurses, and teachers in the Pacific Northwest. This comes amid a renewed wave of American labor activism.
Oregon’s proposed measure would make it the first state to provide financial support to picketing public employees, whereas most states do not permit such strikes, much less compensation. The bill in Washington would provide payments to striking private sector workers for up to 12 weeks, beginning after at least two weeks of striking.
“This initiative aims to level the playing field,” stated Democratic state Senator Marcus Riccelli, the sponsor of Washington’s bill. “The absence of a safety net during a strike creates immense pressure on workers to either end the strike prematurely or avoid striking altogether.”
However, the bills are raising concerns over the impact on employers, especially during economically uncertain times due to federal funding reductions and tariffs. “Forcing employers to cover the costs of a striking worker disrupts the balance at the negotiating table,” Lindsey Hueer, government affairs director with the Association of Washington Business, told senators at a committee hearing. “Unemployment insurance is meant to be a safety net for those without any job, not striking workers.”
So far, only New York and New Jersey offer unemployment benefits to striking workers. Senate Democrats in Connecticut have revived similar legislation after a previous attempt was vetoed by the governor.
Both measures in Washington and Oregon have passed the state Senate in each state and are now under consideration in the House. Last week, the Washington bill proceeded to its final committee hearings. According to analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank, providing unemployment benefits to striking workers benefits both employees and employers. Daniel Perez, a state economic analyst for the organization, noted that long strikes are rare, with most ending within two days. Therefore, the cost of implementing such policies would amount to less than 1% of unemployment insurance expenditures in states contemplating similar legislation.
Bryan Corliss, spokesperson for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace union, said the main beneficiaries would be low-wage workers. “If low-income workers had the financial security to strike for extended periods without the threat of eviction, it would compel companies to negotiate seriously,” he explained.
During a Washington House labor committee hearing, Republican lawmakers attempted to amend the bill to require striking workers to seek alternative employment or reduce the benefit period from 12 weeks to four. These proposals were rejected by the Democratic majority.
Republican Rep. Suzanne Schmidt acknowledged the potential worker benefits, but expressed concern for employers. “During the Boeing strike last year, the machinists strike involved 32,000 workers. If this bill had been enacted, the financial burden of covering those workers would have been tremendous, costing millions,” she said. Boeing incurred significant losses having workers strike for several months.”
The Oregon measure would also make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits after a two-week period, prompting similar discussions among lawmakers and constituents. This year, Oregon experienced two significant strikes: a six-week walkout involving nurses and doctors in Providence hospitals, and a 2023 strike by Portland Public Schools teachers that shut schools for over three weeks in the state’s largest district.
The Oregon Senate passed the measure, largely along party lines, with some Democrats dissenting. On the Senate floor, Democratic Senator Janeen Sollman expressed concerns about the financial impact on public employers, particularly school districts that lack additional funding sources. Private employers pay into the unemployment trust fund via payroll taxes, but few public employers do, meaning they would need to reimburse the fund.
Supporters like Democratic Senator Chris Gorsek argued the bill wouldn’t necessarily increase employer costs because striking workers do not receive pay. He noted that unemployment benefits cover up to 65% of a worker’s weekly pay and are capped. “Unemployment insurance is a partial wage replacement and does not add extra costs to employers,” he explained. “Additional costs would only occur if the employer decided to hire replacement workers.”