Unemployment benefits for striking workers being considered in Oregon, Washington
Oregon's measure would make it the first state to provide pay for picketing public employees — who aren't allowed to strike in most states, let alone receive benefits for it. Washington's would pay striking private sector workers for up to 12 weeks, starting after at least two weeks on the line.
'The bottom line is this helps level the playing field,' said Democratic state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, who sponsored Washington's bill. 'Without a social safety net during a strike, workers are faced with tremendous pressure to end the strike quickly or never go on strike in the first place.'
But the bills are raising questions about how they would affect employers, especially amid economic uncertainties tied to federal funding cuts and tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.
'It's inappropriate to unbalance the bargaining table in a way that forces employers to pay for the costs of a striking worker,' Lindsey Hueer, government affairs director with the Association of Washington Business, told senators during a committee hearing in February. 'Unemployment insurance should be a safety net for workers who have no job to return to.'
So far only two states, New York and New Jersey, give striking workers unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats in Connecticut have revived legislation that would provide financial help for striking workers after the governor vetoed a similar measure last year.
Benefits bills advance but face opposition
The measures in Washington and Oregon have been passed by the state Senate of each and are now in the House. The Washington bill faces its final committee hearings on Friday and Monday.
The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, pro-labor think tank in Washington, D.C., has studied the effects of giving unemployment benefits to striking workers and found it to be good for workers and employers alike, said Daniel Perez, state economic analyst for the organization.
First, he said, lengthy strikes are extremely rare. More than half of U.S. labor strikes end within two days — workers wouldn't receive pay in those cases — and just 14% last more than two weeks. Second, the policy costs very little — less than 1% of unemployment insurance expenditures in every state that has considered legislation.
Bryan Corliss, spokesperson for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace union, told The Associated Press that the big winners would be low-wage workers.
'If low-wage workers had the financial stability to actually go on strike for more than a day or two without risking eviction, we believe that would incentivize companies to actually come to the table and make a deal,' he said.
During a hearing in the Washington House labor committee last week, several Republican lawmakers tried to amend the bill to require striking workers to look for other jobs or to shorten the time covered from 12 weeks to four. The Democratic majority shot those ideas down.
Republican Rep. Suzanne Schmidt said the bill might be good for workers, but it would hurt employers.
'We've seen instances of this with the Boeing strike last year for the machinists,' she said. 'We had 32,000 people on strike at the same time and if this had been in play it would have cost millions of dollars to cover those workers. Boeing did actually lose billions having the workers on strike for several months.'
The Oregon bill, which also would make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits after two weeks, sparked a similar debate, both among Democratic and Republican lawmakers as well as constituents, with hundreds of people submitting written testimony.
The state has seen two large strikes in recent years: Thousands of nurses and dozens of doctors at Providence's eight Oregon hospitals were on strike for six weeks earlier this year, while a 2023 walkout of Portland Public Schools teachers shuttered schools for over three weeks in the state's largest district.
The Oregon Senate passed the measure largely along party lines, with two Democrats voting against it.
On the Senate floor, Democratic Sen. Janeen Sollman said she worried about the effect on public employers such as school districts, which 'do not have access to extra pots of money.' Private employers pay into the state's unemployment trust fund through a payroll tax, but few public employers do, meaning that they would have to reimburse the fund for any payments made to their workers.
Democratic Sen. Chris Gorsek, who supported the bill, argued it wouldn't cost public employers more than what they've already budgeted for salaries, as workers aren't paid when they're on strike. Also, those receiving unemployment benefits get at most 65% of their weekly pay, and benefit amounts are capped, according to a document presented to lawmakers by employment department officials.
'Unemployment insurance is partial wage replacement, so unemployment insurance in and of itself is not an additional cost to the employer,' Gorsek said. 'In fact, the only way Senate Bill 916 would yield additional cost for what was already budgeted by the employer is if the employer decided to hire replacement workers.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump, Carney to speak soon, Canadian official says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely talk "over the next number of days" after the U.S. imposed a 35% tariff on goods not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, a Canadian official said on Sunday. Dominic LeBlanc, the federal cabinet minister in charge of U.S.-Canada trade, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that he believes there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down tariffs. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction?
Key Points Market indexes have been reaching new heights, and right now is an incredibly expensive time to buy. Some investors are worried a correction or recession may be looming, making it smarter to wait. However, history suggests that there's never necessarily a bad time to invest. 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index › The S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) has been breaking records over the last few weeks, officially reaching a new all-time high in July. As of this writing on Aug. 1, it's up by about 25% from its low point in April. However, not everyone is optimistic about the market right now. In fact, one-third of U.S. investors say they are feeling "bearish" about where stocks will be in the next six months, according to the most recent weekly survey from the American Association of Individual Investors. With stock prices near record-breaking highs, some investors may be tempted to wait until the next downturn to buy at a discount. Here's what history says about whether you should buy now or hold off. Is it safe to invest now? Nobody can predict where stocks will be a few months or a year from now, and new policies out of Washington could change things on a dime. However, several scenarios are possible. For one, stock prices could continue soaring like they have over the past few months. If that happens, right now would be a fantastic time to buy to see immediate gains. Scenario two is that the market takes a sharp turn for the worse, like it did earlier this year amid tariff uncertainty. Between February and April, the S&P 500 fell by close to 20%, leaving many investors panicked and eager to sell. But those who stayed the course and held their investments reaped the rewards when the market quickly rebounded. A similar situation played out in March 2020, when the S&P 500 experienced one of the fastest crashes in history at the start of the pandemic. The short term was rough, but the S&P 500 has since earned total returns of nearly 112%. The third scenario may be the one that concerns investors the most: a prolonged recession. But even if that is on the horizon, investing at record-high prices doesn't necessarily mean you'll lose money. A market downturn may result in your portfolio losing value. But if you hold your investments until the rebound without selling, you likely won't experience any actual losses. Say, for example, you invested in an S&P 500 index fund in December 2007. The market was reaching record highs at the time, but it was about to slip into the Great Recession, which would last until 2009. In that time, your investment would have plunged by more than 50%. Selling at any point during that recession could have locked in significant losses, since you would have likely been selling your investments for far less than what you paid for them. However, if you simply stayed in the market, you would have earned total returns of around 75% after 10 years and 312% by today -- more than quadrupling your money. In other words, even if you had invested at the seemingly worst possible moment -- at record-high prices immediately before one of the most severe recessions in U.S. history -- you would still have made a significant amount of money over time. Now, could you have earned more if you had waited until the market was at its lowest point to buy? Definitely. But hindsight is 20/20, and nobody knows when the next correction or bear market will begin. Timing the market accurately is next to impossible, and if your timing is even slightly off, you could potentially lose a lot of money. Rather than waiting for a chance to "buy the dip," it's often wiser to invest consistently. You can always increase the amount you invest during the next slump, when stocks are at a discount. But in the meantime, continuing to buy can ensure you're not missing out on immediate gains if stock prices stay on the rise. One major caveat to remember The key to ensuring your portfolio survives a downturn is to only invest in long-term quality stocks. Sometimes weak companies can thrive in the short term, earning exponential growth in a matter of months. But those investments are far less likely to pull through tough economic times. Healthy companies with strong business foundations have a much better chance of seeing long-term growth despite short-term hiccups. When a company has a solid competitive advantage, a competent leadership team, robust financials, and a long-term plan for the future, it's much more likely to survive even the worst recessions or bear markets. The most important thing you can do right now, then, is double-check that every stock in your portfolio deserves to be there. Once you're certain that all of your investments have healthy fundamentals, you can rest easier knowing that you're well prepared for whatever may lie ahead. Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now? Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Katie Brockman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US trade advisor says Trump tariff rates unlikely to change
New US tariff rates are "pretty much set" with little immediate room for negotiation, Donald Trump's trade advisor said in remarks aired Sunday, also defending the president's politically driven levies against Brazil. Trump, who has wielded tariffs as a tool of American economic might, has set tariff rates for dozens of economies including the European Union at between 10 and 41 percent come August 7, his new hard deadline for the duties. In a pre-taped interview broadcast Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said "the coming days" are not likely to see changes in the tariff rates. "A lot of these are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country," Greer said. "These tariff rates are pretty much set." Undoubtedly some trade ministers "want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States," he added. But "we're seeing truly the contours of the president's tariff plan right now with these rates." Last Thursday, the former real estate developer announced hiked tariff rates on dozens of US trade partners. They will kick in on August 7 instead of August 1, which had previously been touted as a hard deadline. Among the countries facing steep new levies is Brazil. South America's largest economy is being hit with 50 percent tariffs on exports to the United States -- albeit with significant exemptions for key products such as aircraft and orange juice. Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Jair Bolsonaro, the ex-president accused of plotting a coup in a bid to cling to power. The US president has described the case as a "witch hunt." Greer said it was not unusual for Trump to use tariff tools for geopolitical purposes. "The president has seen in Brazil, like he's seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy," Greer told CBS. "It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues." Trump was "elected to assess the foreign affairs situation... and take appropriate action," he added. Meanwhile White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said that while talks are expected to continue over the next week with some US trade partners, he concurred with Greer's tariffs assessment in that the bulk of the rates "are more or less locked in." Asked by the host of NBC's Sunday talk show "Meet the Press with Kristen Welker" if Trump could change tariff rates should financial markets react negatively, Hassett said: "I would rule it out, because these are the final deals." Legal challenges have been filed against some of Trump's tariffs arguing he overstepped his authority. An appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments, though the case may be ultimately decided at the Supreme Court. mlm/des