Unemployment insurance is intended to replace wages for workers who have lost their jobs, not those who have decided not to work for whatever reason. Proposed state legislation that would provide jobless benefits to striking workers goes against the intent of the program and should be struck down by the state's elected leaders. 

We're mystified how House Bill 1893 made it through the state House and into Senate committee, but the fact that it's still alive in a short legislative session is telling of both the audacity of labor unions and the power they wield over state legislators. That dynamic is one employers should consider when deciding whom to support in upcoming elections. 

In labor disputes, it's best for all parties involved—and the community as a whole—to resolve issues as quickly as possible. Prolonged strikes have the potential to affect an employer's bottom line and its ability to function. At the same time, workers stand to suffer from lost wages. Pain on both sides compels action to resolve such issues. 

If striking workers don't feel that pain and are compensated for choosing not to work, as Greater Spokane Incorporated public policy director Jake Mayson says, "It tips the scale in a way that makes strikes more frequent and disrupts the power balance."

The broader implications of longer, more frequent strikes is that they potentially could slow construction projects and disrupt supply chains, both of which could increase costs in an era in which inflation already is proving to be persistent. 

In that environment, costs for unemployment insurance are likely to rise for union and nonunion employers alike. Amendments to the bill place the benefit costs directly on the employer involved in the labor dispute, but there are plenty of reasons to believe providing benefits to striking workers will tax the entire system. 

Unemployment insurance rates are what's called an experience-based system, which means an employer's rate is based on claims history over the most recent four years. However, there also is a shared-cost tax that affects everybody, regardless of claims history. Because of that component, there's no getting around the fact that everybody stands to pay higher rates if the legislation becomes law. 

Some unions have strike funds that replace wages during labor disputes, of course. If unions and their members want to bolster their own funds as a strategic measure, they have every right to do so. But such funds don't burden a public system the way the proposed legislation is likely to do if it becomes law.

The California Legislature recently passed a similar bill to the one considered in Washington, and democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill because of the strain that state's unemployment system is under already. That should be a bellwether event for Washington, and if the current bill makes it to Gov. Jay Inslee's desk, we hope he would take a similar approach. 

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about providing unemployment benefits to those who choose not to work, regardless of the circumstances. We hope our elected leaders can see that and strike down this ridiculous bill.