30 weeks is enough

NO compelling public policy reason exists to create an extended unemployment benefit for workers in labor disputes. That is the main issue at stake in the current dispute in Olympia over special benefits for workers at Kaiser Aluminum.

Workers on strike don't get unemployment benefits. Kaiser workers, who struck then were locked out after asking to return to work while contract negotiations continued, already have received the standard 30-weeks' benefits. Giving them an additional 30 would be to grant them double the benefits of laid-off workers at Kaiser or elsewhere.

The expense of the extension - $24 million - would come out of the fund contributed by all employers, based on the employers' use of the system. Under the proposed legislation, some of the $24 million could be contributed by Kaiser in a special assessment, thus making the company pay the costs of both sides in a labor dispute.

Either way would inject the state of Washington into matters that are essentially a dispute between a company and its workers.

A related issue in Olympia, also supported by organized labor, has been a change in rules for unionized state employees. At present, their wages are set by the Legislature. Gov. Locke has proposed a bill that would give him the power to negotiate wages, with an up-or-down review by the Legislature. Such a system is used by about half the states. Typically, it tilts the balance of power toward labor.

That might be a good idea in a stingy state with meager compensation. It's not necessary here.