Since Washington state began allowing striking workers to collect unemployment benefits on January 1, 138 workers have received 642 weeks of benefits totaling nearly $506,000, according to a July analysis from the Washington Policy Center. The report argues that repurposing an employer-funded safety net to subsidize strikes is misguided, regardless of the program's ultimate cost. The center contends the policy shifts the financial burden of collective bargaining from unions to employers who fund the unemployment insurance system.
The fiscal impact remains small compared to overall unemployment insurance activity. The Employment Security Department reported that 61,142 people received unemployment benefits in June alone, while 138 striking workers have received benefits under the new law since January. The numbers have climbed steadily since the law took effect — on March 5, the department confirmed that 106 striking workers had received 415 weeks of benefits. By July 10, those figures had grown to the current totals. The Washington State Standard reported that striking workers at Hilton's Embassy Suites in Seattle's Pioneer Square have also applied for benefits, suggesting the numbers could rise again.
The report notes that supporters of Senate Bill 5041 argued the law would rarely be used, wouldn't encourage longer strikes, and wouldn't impose meaningful costs on the unemployment system. But the Washington Policy Center counters that "two things can be true: Strike claims currently represent a tiny share of unemployment insurance benefit payouts, while the policy change itself remains significant." The report quotes one bartender in the current Seattle hotel strike explaining to The Washington State Standard that the benefits "allow people to go on strike for longer and be better off financially in order to get the contracts that they want signed." According to the center, employers shouldn't be required to finance benefits for workers who voluntarily stop working during labor disputes, since the UI fund was created to protect workers who lose work through no fault of their own.
The report argues the policy expansion comes at a troubling time for the state's unemployment trust fund. Washington state's unemployment trust fund is already projected to fall below the statutory solvency level that can trigger automatic employer tax increases, with state projections showing benefit payments outpacing employer tax collections. While strike benefits paid so far aren't driving that projected increase, the center says it's concerning lawmakers expanded eligibility while the fund is expected to fall below its reserve target. The report explains that adding a new category of beneficiaries moves the system in the wrong direction and adds to costs Washington employers must absorb — costs that can ultimately affect hiring, wages, and opportunity for workers. The center warns that making Washington less attractive for investment and hiring hurts both employers and workers, since healthy businesses create jobs, raise wages, and expand opportunity.
The Employment Security Department is required to submit its first annual report on strike-related unemployment claims and their effect on the trust fund by the end of 2026, which will provide the first official picture of how frequently the law is being used. The Washington Policy Center concludes that while "the UI bucket has barely lost any additional water," the Legislature "drilled a new hole in its side that will continue to leak." The report's central takeaway: policies that steadily increase the cost of doing business ultimately hurt workers themselves.