The strike lasted a week — short enough that Flores didn’t face serious financial hardship. But she saw the strain it put on many of her co-workers. Even a few days without pay meant tough choices: stretching every dollar, leaning on family, or turning to strike funds.
“For my co-workers, even that week-long strike was significant,” Flores said. “Most of us live paycheck to paycheck.”
The Washington State Senate has passed Senate Bill 5041, which aims to extend unemployment insurance (UI) benefits to workers during a labor strike. If the bill passes the House and is signed by the Governor, Washington would become the third state — after New York and New Jersey — to grant this benefit. Striking workers who have logged at least 680 hours in the past year would become eligible for UI benefits starting the second Sunday after their legal strike begins, following a required one-week waiting period.
The bill’s fiscal note estimates that approved claimants would receive an average weekly benefit of $757 in fiscal year 2026, for up to four weeks, with payments determined by their employer's experience rate. The bill also removes disqualifications for workers affected by employer-initiated lockouts in multi-employer bargaining disputes.
“None of us can last forever,” Flores said. “Unemployment would take away some of that fear. It wouldn’t make striking easy, but it would make it possible.”
Sen. Marcus Riccelli (D-Spokane), the bill’s sponsor, emphasized that SB 5041 is about leveling the playing field for workers who risk financial ruin when they choose to strike.
“Striking is always a last resort,” Riccelli said. “This bill isn’t about creating an incentive to strike — it’s about making sure workers aren’t starved into submission while fighting for fair wages and safe working conditions.”
Riccelli explained that the bill includes safeguards, such as a 12-week cap on UI benefits, an annual review by the Employment Security Department (ESD) and a ten-year sunset provision. Additionally, the legislation requires the ESD to produce annual reports on strike prevalence and the financial impact on the UI Trust Fund, allowing lawmakers to reassess its long-term effects before making the policy permanent.
“This is a reasonable measure that ensures workers can negotiate in good faith without fear of immediate financial devastation,” Riccelli said.
Joe Kendo, the chief of staff of the Washington State Labor Council, has long been an advocate for workers’ rights, especially in industries with low-wage workers. A vocal supporter of unions and collective bargaining, Kendo has observed firsthand the struggles workers face when trying to organize in large corporations like Starbucks.
“Starbucks is a textbook example of the corporate tactics that crush workers’ attempts to organize,” Kendo said. “When you’re looking at a massive multinational corporation, they have the money and resources to fight these workers at every turn, and that power imbalance makes it nearly impossible for workers to gain the leverage they need to succeed.”
Kendo emphasized that, even with the public’s increasing awareness of these efforts, the company’s reluctance to recognize unions has only escalated.
“Workers have been organizing for years, and still they are met with resistance at every step — from the tactics used to delay recognition to the lack of meaningful contract negotiations,” Kendo said. “The outcome is that workers are forced into strikes, often without the resources to sustain them, while Starbucks continues to rake in billions in profit.”
According to Kendo, without financial support during a strike, workers are left with no choice but to accept unfavorable terms.
Rachel Ybarra, a barista and member of Starbucks Workers United for three years, shared their testimony in support of SB 5041 in January.
“A couple of months ago, at our most recent session, Starbucks insulted us by offering us a raise of just 34 cents an hour,” Ybarra said. “With this offer, it would take me a whole year to make what our CEO makes in one hour.”
For Ybarra and their co-workers, this indicated Starbucks wasn’t serious about reaching an equitable agreement, and it was a demonstration of the vast power imbalance in negotiations. Ybarra says the decision to strike in Dec. 2024 was not made lightly.
“The greatest obstacle in getting my co-workers on strike is the same obstacle for me: I can’t afford to lose the money,” Ybarra said. “To miss five days of work, barely making ends meet as it is, puts a severe strain on an individual. The threat isn’t just to our financial stability — it’s a choice between eating ramen for a week or getting real groceries.”
Boeing wing mechanic lead Lee Lara, who has worked for the company for 16 years, yells in response to honks from passing drivers as workers wave picket signs while striking after union members voted to reject a contract offer, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024, near the company’s factory in Everett. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)
A similar bill was introduced in the 2024 legislative session and passed the House, but did not advance to the Senate floor due to opposition from the Republican majority and some Democratic lawmakers.
Sarah Clark, director of policy at the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, testified against Senate Bill 5041 during a February hearing, citing the fragility of the regional economy, especially for small businesses.
“We are still facing many challenges after the pandemic. Foot traffic downtown is below pre-pandemic levels,” Clark said. “We have a growing number of vacant storefronts. It’s becoming increasingly challenging to attract new businesses to our region, and our small business economy is far from recovered.”
Lindsey Hueer, representing the Washington Association of Business, opposes SB 5041 because she similarly believes it would impose significant financial burdens on employers.
“Our small business community cannot afford more cost increases, which is exactly what will happen if this bill passes,” Hueer said.
She argued that the bill would lead to higher unemployment insurance costs for all employers in the state. She explained that ESD would face increased administrative costs, which would be passed on to employers through higher rates.
“It will necessitate an increase in rates to be able to pay for those costs,” Hueer said. “That will have a cost on every single employer who pays into the unemployment system, whether they have one employee or they have tens of thousands of employees."
While administering these benefits would require additional state resources, ESD estimates this would cost about $670,000 upfront for system updates and $172,000 per year for extra staff to process claims. According to ESD, these administrative costs are relatively small and would not cause a noticeable increase in tax rates for most businesses.
Hueer expressed concern that the bill could unbalance labor negotiations. She pointed out that under the current system, both employers and employees have a financial incentive to reach an agreement. However, with the proposed bill, workers could receive unemployment benefits during a strike, while employers would face the added cost of increased unemployment claims. According to Hueer, this would create “a financial safeguard to the workers at the cost to the employer,” potentially making it more advantageous for workers to strike.
According to ESD, if SB 5041 passes, the cost of unemployment benefits for striking workers would be paid by their employer, rather than being shared by all businesses in the state. This means the overall UI trust fund — which currently holds $3.9 billion — would see a minor impact, estimated at just 0.002% of its total balance.
ESD projects striking workers would receive $5.7 million in benefits in fiscal year 2027, the first full year the change would be in effect. The employers would be responsible for repaying those benefits, but these costs wouldn’t be due all at once. Instead, they would be spread out over four years through gradual increases in the employer’s unemployment tax rate.
ESD’s analysis suggests that a single strike wouldn’t cause a dramatic spike in an employer’s UI tax rate. The impact on an individual business’s taxes would depend on the size and length of a strike, but large, sudden increases are unlikely.
A key comparison used throughout the discussion of SB 5041 is New Jersey’s policy of offering unemployment benefits to workers on strike. Kendo said, New Jersey sees about half the number of strikes that Washington does since instituting the change. He believes this policy hasn’t led to more strikes, but may have helped resolve them more quickly when they do occur.
“I just don’t think anyone can argue, at least from a data-driven perspective, that these sorts of policies have resulted in a significant increase in strike activity,” Kendo said.
Washington’s UI Trust Fund currently has a balance of about $3.9 billion and 8.2 months of benefits available, as confirmed by a 2024 ESD report. The estimated annual cost of extending benefits to striking workers represents less than a 1% increase in the state’s total unemployment insurance expenditures.
ESD will be required to submit an annual report to the Legislature from 2025 to 2035. This report will track the prevalence of strikes in Washington, the impact on the UI Trust Fund, and how many workers were paid benefits during strikes. It will also examine how labor disputes affect employers’ tax rates and contributions to the unemployment system.
SB 5041 passed the Washington State Senate on March 7 with a 28-21 vote and is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives.
Correction: A previous version of this article listed an incorrect title for Joe Kendo.
