TRENTON, N.J. – Seyfarth Shaw LLP Associate attorney Jason Silver does not think a law recently passed in New Jersey that allows striking workers in that state to collect unemployment benefits will carry over to other states with Democratic leadership, such as Illinois.
“There is nothing to affirmatively suggest that other states, including Democratic-controlled states, will adopt legislation that provides striking employees with unemployment benefits,” said Silver, of New York, in an interview with the Cook County Record. “It is worth noting current legislation in both New Jersey and New York is not surprising, given the high number, as compared to other states, of public and private-sector union employees.”
Specifically under New Jersey’s law, Silver said “an employee is now eligible for unemployment benefits because of a labor dispute if the labor dispute is caused by the failure or refusal of the employer to comply with an agreement or contract (including a collective bargaining agreement) between the employer and the employee or if unemployment is caused by a labor dispute, including a strike or other concerted employee activities, but not by a lockout or a labor dispute caused by the employer's non-compliance.”
Jason Silver
| Seyfarth Shaw
Like in New York, striking employees in New Jersey are eligible for unemployment following a 30-day waiting period if the criteria set in the law are met.
New Jersey legislators first proposed the bill in 2016, when then-Gov. Chris Christie was still in office. He has since been replaced as New Jersey’s governor by Democrat Phil Murphy.
Silver was unsure of whether Christie was at least partially to blame for the failure of the 2016 legislation.
“There is nothing to affirmatively suggest that Chris Christie was the only reason bill S2160 did not get passed in 2016, although the bill could not have passed without Mr. Christie’s signature and approval, which he did not give,” Silver said.
Silver also did not believe the bill was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME to boost unions after they lost the right to collect fair share fees from non-union government workers.
“I do not think the bill was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s Janus decision,” he said. “(New Jersey’s) bill was first introduced in 2016, well before the Supreme Court issued the Janus decision. The bill furthers Gov. Murphy’s agenda to increase employee protections throughout the state.”
In addition to New York and New Jersey, which provide striking workers unemployment benefits after a waiting period, Silver said “Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut provide striking workers unemployment benefits under specific factual circumstances.”
“To my knowledge, there is no pending or proposed legislation that is similar to the newly passed New Jersey bill in other states,” Silver said.