Late last week it was reported that the machinist's union had advised its members on strike with Boeing to apply for state unemployment insurance benefits. This is an unlikely strategy, as today's Everett Herald points out, but it's also irresponsible.
State law disqualifies striking workers from receiving UI benefits. And there's a sound reason why -- not only are the workers not technically "unemployed," but making employers pay higher UI taxes to fund benefits for their workers who are on strike makes the employer, in part, subsidize the strike. That upsets the balance that labor law strikes between negotiating parties. In the jargon of traditional labor law, a strike is an "economic weapon" the union uses against an employer to force them to the table. Resort to a strike is meant to inflict pain -- but on both sides, to incentivize bargaining, under conditions federal law regulates. Subsidizing the strike through UI benefits (and taxes) undercuts the incentive to bargain.
In an apparent attempt to attack this legal disqualification from benefits, the union has filed an "unfair labor practice" charge against Boeing at the National Labor Relations Board. Presumably the thinking is that if the NLRB were to find an unfair practice, it might open the door to benefits.
The Employment Security Department's website, however, dispels that notion. A finding by the NLRB does not affect state law. There have occasionally been legislative proposals in Washington to the contrary, see, e.g., here, but none have passed.
The union's ploy is irresponsible for two reasons. First, it advises workers to seek out a benefit the union knows they are ineligible for. And more than that, as quoted in the Herald, union leaders are encouraging members to appeal the expected denial of benefits. "It's up to an administrative law judge to decide," said Connie Kelliher, spokeswoman for the Machinists. Filing frivolous benefit claims, and then frivolous appeals of the denial of frivolous claims, diverts resources, eats up administrative expense, and unnecessarily distracts ESD from handling its legtimiate caseload.
Second, claiming to strike against an unfair labor practice is a serious (but not uncommon) ploy, and if it was done here to attempt to bolster members' chances of getting UI benefits, it is needlessly eating up staff time at the NLRB, inviting paperwork and delays, and undermining the ability to salvage good will at the bargaining table.
(cross-posted at WashACE.com)
