More States Grant Unemployment Benefits to Striking Workers

In the span of just 36 days this spring and summer, the number of states offering unemployment benefits to striking workers doubled—to four.

New Jersey was the first to offer such benefits, beginning in 2018. New York followed in 2020.

Then Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed SB 5041 by Sen. Marcus Riccelli (D) on May 19, establishing unemployment insurance benefits for striking workers in the Evergreen State.

“This bill levels the playing field for workers who are fighting for fair wages and working conditions,” Ferguson said in a press release. “Strikes are a last resort, and while they are an important tool for workers, they can be financially debilitating. This bill ensures workers have the resources they need to effectively bargain with their employers.”

Less than a month and a half later, on June 24, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) signed SB 916 by Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D), providing unemployment benefits for striking workers in the Beaver State.

“Every Oregonian deserves steady income, a living wage, and safe working conditions. Unfortunately, with rising costs of living and an economy where corporations have the lion’s share of the political and bargaining power, workers have to actively fight for these rights,” the Oregon AFL-CIO said in a press release after the bill was signed into law. “Passage of Senate Bill 916 guarantees that workers who are forced to strike for better conditions can receive unemployment insurance and don’t have to starve for a decent wage and job safety.”

Oregon might not be the last state to grant such benefits to striking workers this year. While Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) vetoed legislation (SB 8) to do so in his state on June 23, other proposals ensuring unemployment benefits for striking workers are still pending in Delaware (SB 26), Hawaii (HB 722) and Massachusetts (HB 2168).

Half Dozen States Addressing Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers

At least six states have introduced legislation dealing with unemployment benefits for striking workers in 2025, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Three of those states have enacted such measures.

Critics Say Benefits Too Costly and Unfair

Opponents of these proposals argue that unemployment insurance is supposed to be for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own—that is, workers who want to work. Workers on strike have a right to return to their jobs, showing they can work but are choosing not to.

They say giving striking workers benefits could lower a union’s motivation to bargain in good faith and is unfair to workers who have legitimately lost their jobs.

In the wake of SB 916’s passage in Oregon, Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham said in a press release that he’s talked with laid off workers who have had to wait weeks for their benefits. “Now we’re telling those same families that their tax dollars will go towards unemployment checks for people who still have jobs? That’s not the Oregon I believe in. It stretches that safety net in a way it was never meant to be used.”

Opponents also argue that adding striking workers to the ranks of those receiving unemployment insurance could take a deep toll on state systems funding those benefits. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) cited that very concern when he vetoed a proposal to extend unemployment benefits to striking workers in the Golden State in 2023.

“The UI financing structure has not been updated since 1984, which has made the UI Trust Fund vulnerable to insolvency,” Newsom wrote in his veto message. “Any expansion of eligibility for UI benefits could increase California’s outstanding federal UI debt projected to be nearly $20 billion by the end of the year and could jeopardize California’s Benefit Cost Ratio add-on waiver application, significantly increasing taxes on employers. Furthermore, the state is responsible for the interest payments on the federal UI loan and to date has paid $362.7 million in interest with another $302 million due this month. Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt.”

Supporters Say Opposite: Benefits Aren’t Costly, But Are Fair

Labor and others counter that offering unemployment benefits to striking workers actually isn’t very costly and levels the playing field when employees are fighting for better wages and working conditions. The pro-labor Economic Policy Institute reported that enacting these benefits would cost states less than 1% of unemployment insurance expenditures.

“Strikes are one of the few effective tools workers have to counter the unequal distribution of power in the labor market,” wrote State Economic Analyst Daniel Perez for the institute. “Workers do not make the decision to strike frivolously; they strike as a last resort, often to address critical issues like unfair pay, hazardous working conditions, or job insecurity. When workers make the difficult decision to strike, they should be able to do so without fear of losing their livelihood.”

This is a policy area that is sure to remain popular in blue states for years to come, especially with the labor movement’s recent growth in power and popularity.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.