On Jan. 8, 2026, the U.S. The Department of Labor (DOL) released a memorandum indicating that states could not provide unemployment insurance benefits to striking workers unless they were actively seeking work. Four states — all with Democratic trifectas — have laws that provide unemployment insurance for some striking workers.
In 2025, governors in two states — Washington and Oregon — signed legislation offering benefits to workers involved in certain labor disputes, joining New Jersey (2018) and New York (2020). Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) vetoed bills in 2025 and 2024 that would have done the same, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) did so in 2023. Both states have a Democratic trifecta.
According to Washington Policy Center, the January memo “reiterate[d] a core rule under federal law: States must require claimants to be able to work, available for work and actively seeking work each week they receive benefits,” or risk losing federal grants. These grants cover almost all administrative costs of unemployment insurance in each state, while states typically fund the entirety of benefit costs.
Recent legislative efforts
In Washington, Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed Senate Bill 5041 into law on May 19, 2025. The bill extends unemployment benefits for up to six weeks and expands eligibility to include workers affected by an employer-initiated lockout.
Both chambers of the Washington Legislature passed SB 5041 on April 25, 2025. In the Senate, the bill passed 27-21 with two Democrats joining all Republicans in voting against the bill. It cleared the House 51-45, with all Republicans and six Democrats opposed.
In Oregon, Gov. Tina Kotek (D) signed Senate Bill 916 into law on June 24, 2025. The legislation provides that individuals who are otherwise eligible to collect unemployment benefits are not disqualified from receiving benefits due to an active labor dispute, such as a strike.
Both chambers of the legislature passed the bill on June 12, 2025. The Senate vote was 16-12, with two Democrats joining all Republicans in voting against the bill. In the House, the vote was 35-22, with one Democrat and all Republicans opposed.
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont (D) vetoed SB 8 on June 23, 2025. This bill would have allowed workers who were voluntarily on strike to collect unemployment benefits. In his veto notice, the governor stated, “The Unemployment Trust Fund exists to provide support to individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own, and its long-term sustainability is critical. Extending benefits to individuals actively participating in labor disputes — even after a period of time — alters the fundamental purpose of the program”
In California, the legislature considered but did not pass HB 1983 during the 2024 legislative session, which similarly would have extended unemployment benefits to striking workers. During the 2023 legislative session, a different, similar bill passed the legislature, but Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the measure, saying that he had concerns about the solvency of the state’s unemployment trust fund.
Federal officials weigh in
On Jan. 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor published a memo clarifying federal unemployment insurance law regarding individuals involved in strikes. The memo explains that it is not a violation of federal law for states to provide benefits to workers involved in a labor dispute, but that certain federal requirements apply and noncompliance may result in the loss of federal funding.
Federal law requires “claimants to be able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work.” The memo says that, “states must establish active work search requirements ‘consistent with the strong expectation that [UI] beneficiaries will be engaged in concerted and effective efforts calculated to find a suitable job in the shortest period of time that is practicable.’”
This means that states may not provide blanket exemptions, striking employees must be seeking other work in order to be eligible to receive benefits, and a “state UI agency must examine the claimant’s activity to make sure the effort to secure other work is genuine in nature.” The memo advised that if, during a labor dispute, an employer asks an employee to return to work and they decline, then the state may “need to adjudicate the issue in accordance with state law regarding refusals of work,” and the employee in question may lose benefits as a result.
Arguments
Proponents of providing unemployment benefits to workers in labor disputes say that expanded eligibility aligns with the purpose of the unemployment insurance and would support local economies in areas with an ongoing dispute. They also say that they would not significantly increase benefit costs for states, and that they would decrease the overall duration of labor disputes by creating fairer negotiations and incentivizing employers to bargain quickly and in good faith.
Upon the passage of Washington’s expansion of benefits eligibility, Gov. Ferguson said, “SB 5041 levels the playing field for workers who are fighting for fair wages and working conditions. Strikes are a last resort, and while they are an important tool for workers, they can be financially debilitating. This bill ensures workers have the resources they need to effectively bargain with their employers.”
In Oregon, supporters of their new law argued that the bill would allow striking workers to remain on strike long enough to secure a fair contract. Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D) stated regarding union workers, “They make it so that every day we have clean water, safe roads, safe everything. We owe them the respect of allowing this provision.”
Opponents of providing unemployment benefits to striking workers argue that the policy unfairly disadvantages employers by shifting financial responsibility for supporting striking workers from unions to employers and would place a burden on state finances. They also say that the policy is antithetical to the purposes of the unemployment insurance program, would increase the length and or frequency of labor disputes, and could increase prices of goods and services.
Critics of Washington’s recent changes included said that, “This legislation… turns the unemployment insurance fund, provided by employers and meant for workers who lose work through no fault of their own, into an employer-paid strike fund. Unions should be the ones paying workers not to work. Union dues can be used to help union employees get through a strike.”
Opponents of the Oregon legislation included Sen. Daniel Bonham (R) who said, “The unemployment insurance fund is an institution in this state. Oregonians trust that we, the Legislature, will protect the sanctity of this fund so that it’s there in their time of need — not their time of want, not their time of desire.”
Active legislation
As of April 3, 2026, there were active bills in at least four states that would extend benefits to at least some workers involved in labor disputes, including in Connecticut where lawmakers may send the proposal to Gov. Lamont for consideration for the third consecutive session. On April 2, legislators in the state’s Senate placed the bill on the calendar for debate by the full chamber.
Elsewhere, a bill in Delaware passed the state’s Senate on Jan. 13 by a 16-5, with one Republican joining Democrats to vote for passage. Members of the House Labor Committee reported the bill to the floor with a favorable recommendation on March 10. In two other states, Massachusetts and Minnesota, there are active bills to extend benefits, but none have progressed since February 2025. Delaware and Massachusetts have Democratic trifectas, while Minnesota has a divided government.
At the federal level, Democratic legislators in the House of Representatives and Senate introduced legislation on Sept. 8, 2025 that would exempt workers in labor disputes from the requirement to be actively seeking work to receive unemployment benefits, and would make these workers eligible for federal benefits after a 14-day waiting period. Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) introduced the House version, which has 43 co-sponsors, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the Senate version, which has four co-sponsors. Neither has received a committee hearing.
Additional reading: