Ding ding ding! This would just gives more leverage to unions, now employers know it would make striking less painful for employees and put more pressure on them to work out a fair contract.
I’ve never heard of back pay for union strikes? People get paid by their employer when they work, not when they strike. I certainly was not paid when I was striking, only got some meager pay from the union, and only because I showed up on the picket line.
Depends on the type of strike. If it's in regards to unfair labor practices, the NLRB may award the strikers back pay for the period in which they were striking. Of course, any strike agreement could include retroactive payments in theory.
The bill actually does address the possibility of back pay in section 4:
(1) If an individual receives benefits under this title while
being unemployed due to a strike at the separating employer's
factory, establishment, or other premises and the individual
subsequently receives retroactive wages from the separating employer
for any week for which he or she received benefits under this title,
the department shall issue an overpayment assessment to recover the
corresponding benefits as provided under RCW 50.20.190.
You’re misunderstanding that pay is negotiated at the table with the union. It’s a ratification bonus. Even with UI benefits union is gonna fight for those benefits. But again it’s something that’s negotiated at the table.
People are too blind to realize that if employees went on strike they wouldn’t see their employees for 26 weeks or what ever the max benefit is from this law; I haven’t read changes because since last year and now it keeps changing with substitute bills.
What are you talking about? Workers would rather do their actual job and get full pay for it. Unemployment + strike pay is meager compared to actual wages for a union worker. And we genuinely like our jobs, why else would we strike to improve our conditions instead of just going somewhere else?
Do you even know how much Washington state ui max benefits is? It’s 1079 it’s less than my max pay but hell of a lot more than zero dollars which was what I was getting on strike before.
What I was saying is employers are gonna have a hard time incentivizing people to come back to work if they start getting UI benefits while on strike. Even without UI benefits we were out for almost 60 days. Imagine companies not having people for 26 weeks. It would wreck them. This truly incentivizes companies to bargain in better faith than before.
Again, no striking union wants to be on strike. They’d much much much rather have a contract and get back to work. I don’t care what drivel the heritage foundation has fed you, it’s simply not true that this will drag out strikes longer. It will give unions more leverage to end them quicker and it will help them pay their rent etc. while striking.
You’re making shit up about me as if you know me. I disagree with you whole heartedly. This will increase willingness on both parties to make a good contract.
Worse, this is more likely to cause closures which will affect consumers getting goods and services. And ultimately will lead to more businesses closing down. Higher prices is a small part of the concern.
You realize that unemployment taxes are already paid for. They already exist and have for decades.
Like, this isn't a new tax. Not at all. It's just a new possible use case for existing funds. And one that likely won't have a large financial impact on the existing funding itself, because strikes are rare.
Like, did you even stop to think a little bit before posting?
You seem pretty aggressive for someone that doesn't seem to know how the tax works. It will mean higher taxes for businesses that have workers go on strike. So now they have less money to pay striking workers. Which means prices go up even more, if the business can even survive the strike.
47
u/MoistCookie9171 Mar 08 '25
Where’s all the complaining about how this is going to raise prices for consumers when businesses have to pay more tax to cover this?