Striking workers to receive unemployment?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm not sure how many of you have been following the SAG-AFTRA strike. Its received a surprisingly low amount of publicity. The California legislature just voted to allow the striking workers to receive unemployment benefits. I have mentioned before that I have friends in both unions, and one of my close friends is a camera operator. All of them have side hustles that they are using to supplement their income during the strike, but even so, it doesn't compare to what they normally make, and living here is expensive.

I say this to point out that I have a personal stake in this strike. But even so, I have some major concerns about this move. First, they are willingly unemployed, that's what a strike is. The were not laid off, they have a job they can return to today if they wanted to. Secondly, and this is mentioned in the below article, this is literally the government choosing sides in a labor disagreement within a private industry. There are also concerns about how this will effect an already strained resource pool for the program, and will likely cause a raise in taxes on all employers, the cost of which will, of course, be passed down to the customer.

Not really sure how to feel on this one.

https://archive.ph/6VkZb

[JustWinBaby]

In some respects, going on strike isn't necessarily a personal choice. You could argue that joining the union was a choice, but in this case it seems like if you want to work in that industry, you have no choice but to join.

And in general, having funds/support to go on strike for a fair wage seems like a fair social construct. But what if the taxpayer was on the hook to support a striking teacher's union, who's pay increases will also come out of the taxpayer wallet? I think this is why some unions include a rainy day fund as part of their dues, however that may only provide a limited runway.

Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon and Seth Meyers were doing some podcast together to raise funds for writers. HOW GENEROUS!!!! Granted, I suppose they're donating their time. And Bill Maher just claimed that they don't deserve a living wage because it's a make-or-break business. All those guys have multi-million $ contracts - just 10% of their salary would go a long way toward a significant raise for support staff. They all claim to be for a living wage and rail about CEO pay, but it's a great example of NIMW (not in my wallet) - very easy to be generous with other people's money. Hippocrates, not that it should surprise anyone.

I don't know if a law would work such that the new contract must include backpay for wages lost during the strike. Obviously that would have to come out of any pay gains the union won. The incentives are much better aligned in an industry like automotive where they have massive fixed costs that make a strike very costly for the companies - so both sides have a lot of pain that incentivizes them to reach a deal.

In the case of the actors/writers strike, these are some of the most progressive people out there. Solution would seem to be a 5% tax or whatever on the top-10% of earners. That would provide a healthy rainy day fund for the people that can't afford to be on strike.

[NATI BENGALS]

I’m in a union. And no. If you strike you shouldn’t get unemployment. Unemployment gets abused enough already.

From my understanding you get unemployment if you lose your job unwillingly. The strike is willful. Enough members voted to strike. If you want to make money go work somewhere else. Or agree to terms.

I already want to go on strike, collect money while doing nothing, and then go back to work with higher wages.

[Luvnit2]

(09-15-2023, 05:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m in a union. And no. If you strike you shouldn’t get unemployment. Unemployment gets abused enough already.

From my understanding you get unemployment if you lose your job unwillingly. The strike is willful. Enough members voted to strike. If you want to make money go work somewhere else. Or agree to terms.

I already want to go on strike, collect money while doing nothing, and then go back to work with higher wages.

I agree, if you are in a union or not and choose to not go to your job, then unemployment should be off the table. Employers and business owners pay an unemployment tax on both state and federal unemployment. Even though those businesses have no skin in the game, the rates increase for those situations.

If a union is great, they should be collecting dues to use if worker's go on strike. They control those dues, not the employer or business owner. Then, the employees can go on strike and use their dues collected for a strike having zero impact on others.

As far as. the UAW strike, their demands are crazy. I understand trying to get more, but to ask to be paid 40 hour and work 32 hours is nuts. n the end, the auto worker's will reach an agreement, but if they are smart they would get language (both parties) to stop EV mandates that could put the employee out of work and the 3 auto makers into dire financial straits if the public fails to embrace EV cars and the price tag that comes with them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 05:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m in a union. And no. If you strike you shouldn’t get unemployment. Unemployment gets abused enough already.

From my understanding you get unemployment if you lose your job unwillingly. The strike is willful. Enough members voted to strike. If you want to make money go work somewhere else. Or agree to terms.

I already want to go on strike, collect money while doing nothing, and then go back to work with higher wages.

I'm in a union as well and I'm pretty much in line with you on this.  Although I'm in a public union and California hates those, except for the teacher's union.  Every other year we hear about them trying to mess with our pensions.

(09-15-2023, 06:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree, if you are in a union or not and choose to not go to your job, then unemployment should be off the table. Employers and business owners pay an unemployment tax on both state and federal unemployment. Even though those businesses have no skin in the game, the rates increase for those situations.

If a union is great, they should be collecting dues to use if worker's go on strike. They control those dues, not the employer or business owner. Then, the employees can go on strike and use their dues collected for a strike having zero impact on others.

As far as. the UAW strike, their demands are crazy. I understand trying to get more, but to ask to be paid 40 hour and work 32 hours is nuts. n the end, the auto worker's will reach an agreement, but if they are smart they would get language (both parties) to stop EV mandates that could put the employee out of work and the 3 auto makers into dire financial straits if the public fails to embrace EV cars and the price tag that comes with them.

That's an issue brought up in the article as well.  You're forcing other business that have zero relation to this to pay increased unemployment taxes because of a voluntary strike.  As for UAW, I'm not really familiar with it.  I will say that auto worker have been getting the shaft for the past forty plus years, so I have far more sympathy for them.

[samhain]

(09-15-2023, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure how many of you have been following the SAG-AFTRA strike.  Its received a surprisingly low amount of publicity.  The California legislature just voted to allow the striking workers to receive unemployment benefits.  I have mentioned before that I have friends in both unions, and one of my close friends is a camera operator.  All of them have side hustles that they are using to supplement their income during the strike, but even so, it doesn't compare to what they normally make, and living here is expensive.

I say this to point out that I have a personal stake in this strike.  But even so, I have some major concerns about this move.  First, they are willingly unemployed, that's what a strike is.  The were not laid off, they have a job they can return to today if they wanted to.  Secondly, and this is mentioned in the below article, this is literally the government choosing sides in a labor disagreement within a private industry.  There are also concerns about how this will effect an already strained resource pool for the program, and will likely cause a raise in taxes on all employers, the cost of which will, of course, be passed down to the customer.

Not really sure how to feel on this one.

https://archive.ph/6VkZb

My understanding is that the UAW provides strike assistance payments to workers 8 days after the process begins.  It's not much compared to actual wages.  I've heard 100 bucks a day up to 500 a week.  They also cover most medical and garnish for child support.  I think, but do not know for certain, that most States do not allow striking workers to collect unemployment during the strike.  They also discourage side jobs, as the workers are expected to be actively striking to receive the assistance payments.  

[grampahol]

(09-15-2023, 05:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: In some respects, going on strike isn't necessarily a personal choice.  You could argue that joining the union was a choice, but in this case it seems like if you want to work in that industry, you have no choice but to join.

And in general, having funds/support to go on strike for a fair wage seems like a fair social construct.  But what if the taxpayer was on the hook to support a striking teacher's union, who's pay increases will also come out of the taxpayer wallet?  I think this is why some unions include a rainy day fund as part of their dues, however that may only provide a limited runway.

Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon and Seth Meyers were doing some podcast together to raise funds for writers.  HOW GENEROUS!!!! Granted, I suppose they're donating their time.  And Bill Maher just claimed that they don't deserve a living wage because it's a make-or-break business.  All those guys have multi-million $ contracts - just 10% of their salary would go a long way toward a significant raise for support staff.  They all claim to be for a living wage and rail about CEO pay, but it's a great example of NIMW (not in my wallet) - very easy to be generous with other people's money.  Hippocrates, not that it should surprise anyone.

I don't know if a law would work such that the new contract must include backpay for wages lost during the strike.  Obviously that would have to come out of any pay gains the union won.  The incentives are much better aligned in an industry like automotive where they have massive fixed costs that make a strike very costly for the companies - so both sides have a lot of pain that incentivizes them to reach a deal.

In the case of the actors/writers strike, these are some of the most progressive people out there.  Solution would seem to be a 5% tax or whatever on the top-10% of earners.  That would provide a healthy rainy day fund for the people that can't afford to be on strike.

Just to be clear have you ever met someone who the very moment he or she opens their mouth, even before their vocal cords work your asswipe radar goes off and there is absolutely no doubt in your mind that person is an asswipe? Bill Maher is one of them.. Look up asswipe in the dictionary and there's a picture of Maher beside it..   Make no mistake, Bill Maher is a scab..always was and always will be.. Don't even get me started on how I really feel about Maher..You should check out Kieth Obermans take on Maher..

[basballguy]

I find it odd Texas has better unemployment payments than California. Texas max benefit is 563 and California is 450. I didn't know this until i looked it up after reading this thread.

I think it's ridiculous CA wants to pay unemployment for people who are striking but I think it's more ridiculous California gives more money to homeless than the unemployed.

[guyofthetiger]

My question is if you give striking workers unemployment compensation, how long will the strike go on? I mean you have lost incentive to settle it quickly.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

This isn’t a strike. It’s a paid vacation.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-15-2023, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure how many of you have been following the SAG-AFTRA strike.  Its received a surprisingly low amount of publicity.  The California legislature just voted to allow the striking workers to receive unemployment benefits.  I have mentioned before that I have friends in both unions, and one of my close friends is a camera operator.  All of them have side hustles that they are using to supplement their income during the strike, but even so, it doesn't compare to what they normally make, and living here is expensive.

I say this to point out that I have a personal stake in this strike.  But even so, I have some major concerns about this move.  First, they are willingly unemployed, that's what a strike is.  The were not laid off, they have a job they can return to today if they wanted to.  Secondly, and this is mentioned in the below article, this is literally the government choosing sides in a labor disagreement within a private industry.  There are also concerns about how this will effect an already strained resource pool for the program, and will likely cause a raise in taxes on all employers, the cost of which will, of course, be passed down to the customer.

Not really sure how to feel on this one.

https://archive.ph/6VkZb

This is ludicrous. I’m with you on this. I’ve been paid a few times by SAG but I’m not a member. I have a ton of friends who are, though. Speaking just about my friends in SAG, let’s just say that they ARE the types of people who would demand to be paid unemployment. This is a black and white situation. Strike = no unemployment. Unemployment defeats the purpose. It’d be like going on a hunger strike in prison and demanding they feed you. Leave it up to California to do something like this. Man I’m glad I left.

[basballguy]

I’m shocked Newsome vetoed this bill. I’m double shocked he cited budget constraints as the reason.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-09-30/california-gov-newsom-bill-striking-workers-unemployment-benefits

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-01-2023, 02:47 AM)basballguy Wrote: I’m shocked Newsome vetoed this bill.  I’m double shocked he cited budget constraints as the reason.  

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-09-30/california-gov-newsom-bill-striking-workers-unemployment-benefits

OMG... a DINO (and not our DINO)!  Wonder if he's next to switch....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2023, 02:47 AM)basballguy Wrote: I’m shocked Newsome vetoed this bill.  I’m double shocked he cited budget constraints as the reason.  

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-09-30/california-gov-newsom-bill-striking-workers-unemployment-benefits

I'm not.  The strike is winding down and thus the bill isn't really needed anymore.  He also recently vetoed an extreme transgender bill that would have allowed the state to take away children from parents who don't aid their child in "transitioning."  He's gearing up for a run at national office and he knows that CA's brand of extreme leftism doesn't play outside the west coast.  It makes me wonder if he knows something about Biden's future we don't, as it's rather early to start this move if it's for the '28 election.

(10-01-2023, 04:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: OMG... a DINO (and not our DINO)!  Wonder if he's next to switch....

Not a chance.  Newsome sold his soul to the Dems long ago.

[HarleyDog]

(09-15-2023, 05:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m in a union. And no. If you strike you shouldn’t get unemployment. Unemployment gets abused enough already.

From my understanding you get unemployment if you lose your job unwillingly. The strike is willful. Enough members voted to strike. If you want to make money go work somewhere else. Or agree to terms.

I already want to go on strike, collect money while doing nothing, and then go back to work with higher wages.

Isn’t the union supposed to supplement a percentage of a worker’s wages during a strike?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2023, 11:53 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Isn’t the union supposed to supplement a percentage of a worker’s wages during a strike?

Yes, there is a strike fund.  They burned through that quite awhile ago.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2023, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It makes me wonder if he knows something about Biden's future we don't, as it's rather early to start this move if it's for the '28 election.

Been wondering about that for a while.  Whether corruption troubles or just obstinate, Biden isn't getting out of the way.  Is Newsome quietly running a shadow campaign because Dems know, despite their gaslighting, that Biden is in deep shit?  I doubt any rational person really believes Biden wasn't involved, the question is whether Republicans will find a smoking gun before the election.

But my main theory has been that Newsome would replace Kamala as VP.  Problem is, even if that shores up support for Biden, it might cost them enough women and minority voters to still lose the election.  So what I can't figure out is how they engineer replacing Kamala.

That would really be something if Biden suddenly decides not to run in 8 months, and the DNC puts forward Newsome without any primaries or debates.  Nothing un-democratic about that at all.

[HarleyDog]

(10-01-2023, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, there is a strike fund.  They burned through that quite awhile ago.

Not much of a fund considering how much dues are paid. Freaken unions.