The impact will be negligible, union representatives said. It will make strikes less likely, at least one lawmaker tried to persuade his colleagues. This is necessary for people who walk off the job and have no other economic support, striking workers argued.
Washington Policy Center said a law allowing striking workers to collect unemployment insurance (UI) benefits would bring adverse impacts to workers and employers, that it was not likely to deter strikes and that unions should be the ones paying workers who strike, not the very employers workers strike against. And here we are: Within the month a new law allowing striking workers to collect unemployment insurance benefits took effect, a strike began in Washington state. Now, March 5, the Employment Security Department (ESD) confirms 106 striking workers have been paid 415 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.
That’s the favor unions wanted and received when majority-party lawmakers passed Senate Bill 5041 in the 2025 legislative session. Minority-party lawmakers all rallied against it, with eight Democrats rightly joining them in opposing the bill that became law. (See roll calls here.)
While ESD told me it “cannot reveal any other information about the claims or employers,” Teamsters Local 760 began an open-ended strike Jan. 17 at MultiCare Yakima Memorial Hospital. The union represents 168 technical employees, including staff in surgery, radiology, MRI, pharmacy and laboratory departments, according to NonStop Local. The dispute is in its seventh week with no public announcement of a resolution or return-to-work agreement.
Workers involved in that strike would have become eligible for the UI benefits that they have been encouraged to take around Feb. 1. (Benefit eligibility happens the second Sunday after a strike begins, and the strike, predictably, started on a Saturday. Striking workers also must meet the standard one-week unpaid waiting period. See more eligibility and benefit details at Washington state Employment Security Department.)
Striking workers can receive up to six weeks of UI benefits while the strike is active. Because of this, it will be interesting to see when the strike ends. Six weeks of UI benefits would be up in about a week for those who started taking benefits the first week of February.
No work-search requirement
Some things to know about this change to the UI fund that employers finance for workers who lose work through no fault of their own include: Unlike standard UI claimants, workers participating in a strike are not required to search for work — you know, because they’re not unemployed. A waiver from the requirement is included in the determination letter ESD sends to striking workers.
These not-unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits also don’t have to report strike pay from a union, which workers in this Yakima case are reportedly receiving.
A detail all present and future striking workers should be aware of is that ESD rules say, "Any retroactive wages (back pay) received from the employer for weeks when UI was paid must be reported and may result in an overpayment that needs to be repaid."
That’s exactly why I testified on and am celebrating the passage of Senate Bill 6134 this legislative session. The bill, proposed by Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, does something I have wanted since last March. It requires ESD to notify striking workers — at the point of application — about the possibility they'll incur an overpayment they’ll be expected to repay. It could save money woes for workers who didn’t expect to have to repay UI benefits, and it could save ESD time trying to recoup the money. It could also keep the fund's finances healthier. Read more about protecting the UI fund in that way here. ESD says it recoups only about half of overpayments.
Employers need all the protection for the fund that they can get, especially since UI has been opened up to workers who are not unemployed. The Washington State Standard reported on Nov. 3 that even before this expansion of the UI fund, “Washington businesses would need to shoulder roughly $700 million in additional taxes in a few years unless the projected finances of the state’s unemployment insurance fund improve.”
Last year's SB 5041 was an irresponsible favor to unions that risks harming workers, businesses, taxpayers and the integrity of the UI system itself. Adequate information to striking workers at the point of application is responsible governance that could help prevent some of the harm.
