Should Locked out Employees Be Entitled to EI Benefits?

   Since I’m here in Denver at the Law and Society Conference, thought I’d do a travel labour law blog.  The lead headline story in the Denver Post this morning involves the decision of a Colorado Senator to veto a law that would have made it easier for locked out employees to receive unemployment insurance benefits.  There are looming contract bargaining impasses between the UFCW and the various grocery chains in Colorado.  Apparently, under the existing law, if a union strikes one grocery chain, other grocery chains in bargaining can lock out their unionized workers.  If that happens, the locked out workers do not receive unemployment insurance benefits on the theory that the unions started the fight.  But if there has been no strike anywhere, and an employer locks out employees, the employees are entitled to benefits.  This article explains the legal rules a bit better.  I’ll check with some Colorado labor law profs tonight at the labor law dinner to see if I have this right.
That’s a very different approach to unemployment insurance than we have in Canada.  Employees who are on strike or locked out in Canada are not eligible for benefits.  Here is the government’s explanation.   The policy justification is that giving benefits to striking/locked out workers would empower the workers to stay out on strike longer, and the state has an interest in reducing the length of strikes.  On the other hand, most governments in Canada do permit employers to operate during strikes, which has the same effect:  it allows the employers to withstand a strike/lockout longer, which could increase the length of strikes.  [there are studies that look at the link between strike duration and the ability of employers to operate during a strike, but I don’t have time to link to them now].  
What do you think about that policy?  Should workers be entitled to EI benefits if they are locked out by the employer?