Autoworkers in Hudson, Wis., picketed during their union’s “Stand Up Strike” in 2023.
After a wave of collective action saw American workers improve their pay and working conditions by going on strike, Minnesota lawmakers are weighing a change to the state’s unemployment insurance system that would lighten the economic hardship union members here face during a labor dispute.
Legislation introduced earlier this month by DFLers in the House and Senate would make some workers in Minnesota eligible for unemployment benefits when they are on strike.
Advocates, including several union members who testified in support of the bill last month, said giving workers more leverage at the bargaining table is good for working families, local communities and the economy as a whole.
The cost to the state’s unemployment insurance fund, meanwhile, would be “negligible,” according to Jake Schwitzer, director of the North Star Policy Action, a research group that issued a report on the idea earlier this year. That report estimated the proposed expansion would amount to 0.3% or less of existing unemployment claims.
The benefits, union members said, would far outweigh those costs.
More equal footing
More often than not, employers enter a work stoppage from a position of strength, with deep pockets to cover any losses in productivity. Workers, particularly those in low-wage jobs, begin feeling the impact of lost wages almost immediately.
That dynamic, workers told lawmakers, gives employers an incentive to wait things out and force workers to capitulate to their demands. It’s what Dean Benson, a retired St. Paul Park refinery worker, said Marathon tried to do to members of Teamsters Local 120 when they went on strike for safety and job security three years ago.
“We won that strike, but only because we had the support we needed to keep that fight on,” Benson said during a Senate committee hearing on the bill March 13. “That isn’t always the case because Marathon did what many large corporations try to do when their workers are seeking a fair contract. They tried to starve us out.”
Minnesota’s unemployment benefit covers about 50% of a worker’s average weekly wage, up to a maximum of $890. That’s the right amount, AFSCME Council 5 Interim Executive Director Bart Anderson said, to give workers more bargaining power while keeping the strike a last resort.
“Going on strike will still be financially challenging, but at least workers won’t be starved back to work,” Anderson said.
Community gains
Other supporters argued that the legislation could reduce the number of work stoppages in Minnesota. Employers would know that union members have access to a partial wage replacement if they strike, giving them reason to bargain a timely, equitable contract.
With record profits in the bank, the Big 3 automakers could have reached a deal before members of the United Auto Workers went on strike last September, UAW member John Kontzelmann told lawmakers.
“The strike didn’t have to take five weeks because these employers knew what their top offer was,” said Kontzelmann, who was on strike at the Twin Cities Stellantis parts facility. “Managers didn’t sacrifice a penny while they tried to starve us out, and despite pleading poverty for weeks they ended up agreeing to a record four-year contract.”
The autoworkers’ contracts, with wage increases of 25% or more, also show the ripple effects of union power at the bargaining table. After the UAW settled, non-union automakers across the U.S. moved quickly to increase their wages by double-digit percentages – the so-called “UAW bump.”
“This bill benefits not just workers, but the entire economy,” Rep. Kaela Berg (D-Burnsville), lead House author of the bill, said. “When workers are earning a living wage, they are contributing to the local economy.”
– Michael Moore, Union Advocate editor