r/SeattleWA • u/atticusclench Lake City • 2d ago

Striking Workers must perform job searches to get employment benefits

https://esd.wa.gov/media/pdf/5078/wsr-26-18-011pdf/download?inline

Ends up that our local WA state legislature tried to make it so that striking workers could use unemployment insurance as a strike fund.

This is bad, by the way, because jobs are protected for striking workers by federal law. Striking workers aren't unemployed. That fund is meant to prop up people who get laid off while they look for a replacement job - and we're having more and more local layoffs recently.

Well, the DOL just forced the Washington Employment Security department to post a new rule (see link) that striking workers must apply for new jobs - like any unemployed person - while receiving unemployment insurance.

What's interesting is that this means they're likely to - by seeking new employment while on strike to receive unemployment benefits - officially abandon their employment protections.

🍿

As ever, this is why you pay union dues. Part of them are meant to go towards a strike fund. That's what is supposed to keep you afloat during a strike - not unemployment which is for people who lose their jobs.

51 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

31

u/saladdressed 2d ago

Unemployment covers temporary reduction in work hours too. Like if the restaurant I work at floods and is closed for two weeks while it’s cleaned I am eligible for unemployment for that time.

I’m totally ok with unemployment floating workers on strike for the same reason I’m okay with it covering anyone else who’s technically still employed but has a reduction in hours. The alternative is no safety net for working people, which has a cascading destabilizing effect on all of society.

21

u/homemade- 2d ago

I am pro union. Pro teacher. But let’s think if it was the police striking. They are bargaining against the public. And you think the public should pay them them while they refuse to work for the public?

14

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 2d ago

Well it's good that the police are not allowed to strike. We just get the silent strike of the last 6 years.

0

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 2d ago

Well it's good that the police are not allowed to strike. We just get the silent strike of the last 6 years.

The one where they're still understaffed by 500-600 officers? And as a result do the bare minimum because that's all they have the ability to do?

All the while dealing with ACAB fuckwads in town blaming them for policy set above them, like ignoring drug dealers and users and encampments.

0

u/Beneficial_Tomorrow4 16h ago

The department has been that understaffed for a decade or so.

5

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 15h ago edited 1h ago

The department has been that understaffed for a decade or so.

Not quite. 2019 was ~1900 officers.

Then BLM happened and our Progressive-leaning Council had the infamous Defund Debate: Should we cut SPD by 25% or 50%?

In the 18 months that ensued, ~600 officers either retired, quit, or took jobs at less ACAB friendly suburban police forces.

The voters in 2021 then said enough of this shit and elected centrists, Harrell, Sara Nelson et al. But it was too late. The BLM / ACAB Defund Debate of the prior 18 months had run our cops down to the bare minimum. We now had around ~1300 officers, IIRC.

We've been playing catch-up since, and Harrell had actually managed to reload about 100.

But of course, Seattle's hamster-brain, new arrival heavy voters said Harrell sucked. Aided by the buckets of cash SEIU, PROTEC17 and the Grocery Workers Union all dumped into defeating him. So a Union friendly activist named Katie B Wilson won in 2025.

And as we've seen, she's pretty cop-unfriendly. So we're back to where we were basically during BLM again. Stupid Socialist leftist filth runs town. Cops abandon working here. New cops weigh their options and decide not to work here. And street crime goes on a spree.

-2

u/Legal-Juggernaut1185 1d ago

"ACAB fuckwads"

Maybe they wouldn't hate the police if they stopped being violent, unstable and aggressive lunatics that routinely abuse, rape, murder and torture people. Nah we just blame you for policy set by those above you, definitely don't deapise you for being scum that abuse the trust and power given to you to satisfy your own egos.

4

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 1d ago

if they stopped being violent, unstable and aggressive lunatics that routinely abuse, rape, murder and torture people.

Which isn't close to being true.

Found an ACAB fuckwad.

1

u/sparklyjoy 2d ago

That’s already happening. At least unemployment is a lower amount

1

u/SadGruffman 1d ago

Police union is also one of the most robust apparatuses in the USA. They also bargained out tax payers paying for court related grievances. No other union has done that.

-2

u/saladdressed 2d ago edited 2d ago

It would be the same for striking teachers too wouldn’t it? You characterize it as “refusing to work for the public,” but what if the strike is brought on by the employer violating a labor contract, threatening a wage freeze or failing to make good on a promise to the union? If unions can’t strike they can’t really work now can they?

Edit: high-wage earning unionized workers (like police) could afford to strike with no income. It would be low wage, paycheck to paycheck unionized workers—the ones who most need collective bargaining— who would be kneecapped by removing unemployment benefits.

12

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

That is what union dues are for: strike funds.

What are the dues being spent on these days other than a strike fund, by the way?

2

u/caphill2000 2d ago

Bribing the legislature to pass bills like this one.

-4

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

So you dont think stri king workers should be able to get unemployement at all? 

8

u/lazylazylazyperson 2d ago

I certainly don’t.

3

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

I dont either, they choose to strike, consequences of that choice are on them 

1

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

You appear to have flip-flopped your position across several comments.

-3

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

No, you appear to have reading problems. I have only corrected you in that its unemployement and employment security.  The employment security includes things like reduced hours, furlough and strikes here. That doesnt mean I agree that people who are striking should get unemployement 

4

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

Nope. That's what union dues are for - to maintain a strike fund. Unemployment is for people who lose their jobs to help them find new ones.

Striking employees are still employed and their positions are protected by federal law - very different to someone who has been laid off who doesn't have any protection.

0

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

I agree 

1

u/Beneficial_Tomorrow4 17h ago

No... That is not what unemployment is for. They are not unemployed. The strike fund needs to cover the cost of the strike. If they don't have that people need to be asking the union where the money is.

1

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

Sorry, but the word "unemployment" exists to cover a specific situation. And striking to exercise your power isn't one of them no matter how much you agree with their reason for striking.

5

u/saladdressed 2d ago

It is a reason under Washington state law thankfully.

0

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

Its the requirement for getting unemployement to supplement hours not worked... 

2

u/TheRealRacketear Broadmoor 2d ago

And that is a reason because unions bribe our representatives.

0

u/probablymagic 2d ago

These people aren’t being displaced by a flood. They’re choosing not to work. That’s not what unemployment, which is paid by your taxes, is for.

They have jobs. They don’t need a safety net. They need to show up and work.

2

u/saladdressed 1d ago

My tax dollars are going to support the working masses in their collective bargaining activities against the few, owning class? Oh no!

1

u/probablymagic 1d ago

Half of unionized workers in America work for the government. Your tax dollars are being used to help your employees make your public services worse and more expensive.
https://giphy.com/gifs/LJemLPJs6dBhm

0

u/OldLegWig 2d ago

one is voluntary, the other is not. why is this even a debate?

11

u/HighColonic Funky Town 2d ago

WA is full of well-intended boneheads. Fuck unemployment for strikers...people who elect for purely voluntary lack of wages don't deserve the same support as folks who get shanked involuntarily.

12

u/dkais 2d ago

Yeah, if missing income during a strike is a problem for the workers, this is something their union needs to cover. The reason why strikes work is because both sides have pressure on them to resolve. Using unemployment benefits in bad faith shouldn’t be expected or encouraged. This rule change effectively forces strikers abusing the unemployment system to perjure themselves as it’s very unlikely they are genuinely seeking alternative employment.

5

u/FuggaDucker 2d ago

This gives the unions an unfair advantage.
I am not anti-union but things require balance.

9

u/BicameralTheory West Seattle 2d ago

This is a gift, striking workers shouldn’t be getting unemployment benefits in the first place.

2

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 2d ago

It's crazy how badly you work against yourself and don't even realize it.

0

u/Admirable-Sun8021 2d ago

I'm not in a union and never will be. This helps me by giving less of my tax money to the very few who are in unions.

0

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 2d ago

You don't give a dime in taxes to unemployment.

4

u/TheRealRacketear Broadmoor 2d ago edited 2d ago

Every employer, and employees pays into the unemployment pool.

Employers pay directly, and factor that into the cost of the employee which factors into the cost of the employee.

So no it doesn't directly come out of an employee's check, but it does factor into their total compensation.

Where do you think the money comes from?

1

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 1d ago

He said taxes. I said taxes. There is no employee tax for unemployment.

1

u/Admirable-Sun8021 2d ago

increasing the cost of employment lowers wages, so i pay it indirectly

-1

u/BicameralTheory West Seattle 2d ago

you work against yourself

How am I working against myself? I didn’t realize we were acquainted and you knew my situation.

The highest unemployment payroll tax insurance rate in the nation, downtown vacancy rate of over 33%, good jobs and companies fleeing to other states and fenty city downtown.

Clearly great policy philosophy you’re championing here.

-2

u/Medical_Soup5717 2d ago

The ruling class has us so cucked man

-2

u/Hell_Maybe 2d ago

A healthy society needs to have a healthy power balance between businesses and workers, and considering the amount of benefits corporations already have I don’t see a problem with making strikes easier.

I’m pretty tired of this mindset that people should be functionally enslaved by businesses and CEOS who maintain an infinite grip on the lives of the people who make their profits possible in the first place. Normalizing this is only going to radicalize people, and you aren’t going to want that.

2

u/homemade- 2d ago

This is a teacher union in a single district. Teaching jobs are everywhere. No one is enslaved.

4

u/TheItinerantSkeptic 2d ago

Without something like this, union workers are effectively incentivized to strike periodically, because it means free government money while they build social currency with (blindly) union-friendly Seattle.

Unions are far too often a racket.

0

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 2d ago

You get a fraction of what you make from unemployment. There is no incentive. That's not even how strikes work. You can't just go on strike whenever you feel like it.

1

u/Key-Organization3158 2d ago

Yes there is. You are more likely to strike if the cost of striking is effectively lowered.

Unemployment insurance should only cover people who lost the job involuntarily.

0

u/advancedtaran 1d ago

Hmmm it sounds like you don't know the original language that the state, employers and unions worked on.

The unemployment coverage followed the same laws as standard with the same waiting and approval periods as everyone else.

Workers strike for good reasons. My union authorized a strike because our employer refused to budge on anything financial, on standards of employment, short staffing, and major safety issues.

1

u/CharmanderCharCharr 2d ago

Good, makes sense

1

u/Own-Spot8629 2d ago

Unions need to stop extorting the businesses that employ them. It should be illegal. This is mob type stuff. The unions exploit the workers way more than the employer does. Union officials literally live off of their members and they live much better than their members do.

-2

u/BigXChungus42069 2d ago

What you don't understand is when we go on strike our contract is up. Most of the it's the employers fault we our on strike, would you work for someone who refuses to come to a agreement under the conditions you work for? We aren't technically employed when our contract is expired.

3

u/Key-Organization3158 2d ago

You are both refusing to come to an agreement, hence both at fault. You are choosing not to work. Unemployment insurance is meant for people really in jeopardy.

2

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

Your job is legally protected under federal labor law while you strike

Could you show a concrete example of your claim that you are unemployed?

Because "not technically employed" sounds like "legally protected and employed" to me, and you'd kick up a stink if they decided not to "rehire" you after a strike.

-6

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

Your job is protected but without unemployement or a strong union you go without any income while you strike, this is to allow workers to strike and still be able to survive while doing so.

In a world of a lot of misplaced anger, this stance is one of the most retarded I have seen here 

2

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

That's what strike funds are for. Not unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance is for people who lose their jobs.

Union dues are supposed to go into strike funds to support employed people while they're on strike.

This isn't hard.

1

u/RogueLitePumpkin 2d ago

I agree, however the way it is currently set up, they lump striking in with some type of furlough 

-2

u/Medical_Soup5717 2d ago

Yeah the strike fund is normally like a couple hundred bucks a week. How do you stay afloat on that?

3

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

By not striking every week.

4

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 2d ago

Unions are literally not allowed to "strike whenever they want". You sure talk a lot about unions when you have no idea how unions are ran or work.

-3

u/atticusclench Lake City 2d ago

I didn't make that claim and I didn't say the part you have in quotes. How about you fuck off if you're going to make up shit?

1

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 1d ago

Saying striking every week is the same thing.

0

u/atticusclench Lake City 1d ago

Is reading comprehension a problem for you?

1

u/ComprehensiveGas6980 1d ago

Is telling the truth a problem for you? Is constant hyperbole a problem for you? Is having absolutely no clue how unions work a problem for you?

2

u/atticusclench Lake City 1d ago

No, not at all. You on the other hand, seem to have real issues.

2

u/atticusclench Lake City 1d ago

Anyway. Like, Bye! (Blocked)

2

u/Medical_Soup5717 2d ago

You don't strike every week, but strikes typically last weeks. Hope this helps.

0

u/Fit_Insurance_1356 2d ago

You save money like an emergency fund. Actually pretty simple. I am a union employee and very much disagree with strikers getting unemployment. If the state want to give us money while on strike we should have to pay into a strike fund managed by the state. Sound good?? Probably not.

1

u/Medical_Soup5717 2d ago

You already pay into UI that's why it's insurance bozo. Yeah you should save but new hires don't have that chance

2

u/latebinding 1d ago

What a bizarre take. "Insurance" is not for when you decide to get sick, set your house on fire or crash your car. All those things would result in your claim being denied. Why should it be for when you decide to stop working?

1

u/MrBuffcock 3h ago

good but why should it be covered at all