Latest news with #MarcusRiccelli
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gov. Bob Ferguson signs bill giving unemployment to striking WA workers
The Brief The governor has signed a new bill into law which creates a path to collecting benefits while on strike. Unemployment benefits wouldn't start as soon as a strike begins, however. The bill takes effect in 2026. SEATTLE - Striking workers will be able to collect unemployment benefits starting next year. This will make Washington the third state in the United States to pass such a bill, joining New York and New Jersey. Big picture view Governor Bob Ferguson signed a new bill into law, SB 5041, which will make workers eligible for unemployment insurance while on strike. The law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2026 and has a 10-year sunset clause, meaning the stat e legislature will need to vote on whether to renew the bill or let it die in 2036. Benefits will not start until 15–21 days after the strike begins, which will depend on the day of week it starts. However, if a contract agreement is reached before this point, there will be no benefits paid out, according to Washington State Democrats. What they're saying "Striking is a last resort, and this bill will help level the playing field for workers trying to exercise their right to collectively bargain for fair wages and safe workplace conditions," Sen. Marcus Riccelli (D-Spokane) said. "Workers joining together in union and collectively bargaining to improve working conditions is as American as apple pie," said April Sims, President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. "But with stagnant wages and a rising cost of living, many workers don't have a safety net if they are pushed to strike. Full statement can be found on the Senate Democrats SB 5041 page. The other side The House Republicans' "Stop Bad Bills" page dissects the newly-passed bill, calling it a dangerous precedent for labor disputes. "SB 5041 would insert the state into private labor negotiations, tilting the balance in favor of unions and incentivizing longer, more frequent strikes," reads a portion of the webpage. The Source Information in this report came from Washington State Legislature, Washington State Democrats, and Washington State Republicans. Viral TikTok warns women of convicted rapist released in Seattle Over 100 Rite Aid and Bartell Drugs stores to close, including 8 in WA Seattle Seahawks 2025 schedule released, here are all 17 matchups Marymoor Park announces 2025 summer concert series lineup in Redmond, WA Viral TikTok captures truck break-in after Seattle Mariners game, despite police presence Bryan Kohberger back in court for pretrial hearing in Idaho students murder case 'Scared of accountability': Crowd calls out West Seattle leaders at public safety meeting FBI nabs Thurston County, WA fugitive hundreds of miles from crime scene To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter. Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national news.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
WA House and Senate reach deal on unemployment benefits for striking workers
Boeing machinists take to the picket line in front of Boeing's Paine Field facility as thousands of IAM District 751 workers began their strike on Friday, Sep. 13, 2024, in Everett, Washington. (Photo by Ryan Berry/Washington State Stadnard) Lawmakers in the Washington House and Senate have struck an agreement to provide up to six weeks of unemployment insurance for striking workers. Both chambers approved Senate Bill 5041 this year to open the safety net program to striking workers, but they set different limits for the amount of time people could receive benefits. The Senate approved a 12-week limit, the House four weeks. Sen. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, said the six-week compromise hits a 'sweet spot,' addressing concerns from businesses while leveling the playing field for low-wage workers. Labor unions and Democratic lawmakers have pressed for the bill, arguing the benefits will help striking workers afford necessities such as food and rent when negotiating for better wages and working conditions. When the bill passed the Senate last month, an amendment that would have restricted unemployment benefits to four weeks failed by one vote. Then, in mid-April, the House amended the bill ahead of a floor vote to add the four-week limit. Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, has not publicly taken a position on the bill. Under the bill, workers would become eligible for unemployment benefits on the second Sunday after a strike begins, plus a one-week waiting period. Typically, unemployment insurance is offered for up to 26 weeks a year. If a strike is determined to be prohibited by state or federal law, benefits would have to be repaid. Workers affected by employer-initiated lockouts would also be eligible for the benefits. Labor advocates point to lockouts as a tactic businesses can use to put pressure on workers during contract negotiations. New Jersey and New York are the only states that provide unemployment insurance for striking workers. Republicans opposed the bill. They, along with business groups, argue it could incentivize workers to strike and result in higher costs for businesses that could spill over onto employers not involved in labor disputes. 'If employers aren't healthy, you don't have workers and when we don't have healthy employers, we're not going to have a healthy economy,' said Rep. Suzanne Schmidt, R-Spokane Valley. The bill would also require the state's Employment Security Department to submit annual reports to the Legislature with data on the prevalence of strikes in the state and the cost of benefits for striking workers for Washington's unemployment insurance trust fund. If passed, the bill would take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and is set to expire Dec. 31, 2035. Both chambers have to wait 24 hours before putting the bill up for a vote, which means it could gain final approval from the Legislature as early as Friday. The session ends Sunday.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Unemployment benefits for striking workers being considered in Oregon, Washington
SEATTLE (AP) — Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are considering whether striking workers should receive unemployment benefits, following recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses and teachers in the Pacific Northwest that highlighted a new era of American labor activism. 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.' ___ Rush reported from Portland, Oregon. Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed.
The Independent
04-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Unemployment benefits for striking workers being considered in Oregon, Washington
Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are considering whether striking workers should receive unemployment benefits, following recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses and teachers in the Pacific Northwest that highlighted a new era of American labor activism. 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.' ___
Associated Press
04-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Unemployment benefits for striking workers being considered in Oregon, Washington
SEATTLE (AP) — Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are considering whether striking workers should receive unemployment benefits, following recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses and teachers in the Pacific Northwest that highlighted a new era of American labor activism. 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.'
