227
California governor rejects bill to give unemployment checks to striking workers (thehill.com)
submitted 1 year ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 84 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.

The fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits is already more than $18 billion in debt. That’s because the fund ran out of money and had to borrow from the federal government during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered most businesses to close and caused a massive spike in unemployment. The fund was also beset by massive amounts of fraud that cost the state billions of dollars."

The reasoning and background, if anyone is curious

[-] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Striking workers should get unemployment checks. Striking workers are unable to work due to no fault of their own. That's what unemployment is supposed to cover.

A strike can only legally happen if contract negotiations are not making progress. If negotiations have reached an impasse, the union can chose to strike, or management can choose to lockout the workers. As long as the union's side of the negotiating table are bargaining in good faith, neither a strike nor a lockout is the fault of the workers. Therefore in any just world they would be eligible for unemployment.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Isn’t that what union dues are for?

[-] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It depends on the union. Strike funds are a good idea. Many unions have them. But there are many expenses in operating any organization, and the dues cover all expenses of the union.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Striking workers are literally employed and strike wages are paid out of union dues.

[-] bestnerd@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s a really weird take for someone who looks to be trying to run in the ‘28 race. Why this stance over all the others you’ve taken? This would have been a grand slam policy along with the others he’s approved this minth

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

He also vetoed a few other progressive bills. He's gone from a "politically uninspiring, but at least he's got fight" to "no, thanks" with this active hippy punching shit. He didn't even need to do anything, passively signing bills that were voted on by his legislature wouldn't blow back on him at all, but he's actively signaling hostility to progressives because he wants to curry favor with people that oppose them.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

How is it weird? Unions will endorse him no matter what he does because he's running against the red team, might as well fuck them over.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 13 points 1 year ago

If only the bloods and crips were pro-worker instead of pro-wealthy class.

Newsom, a Democrat, says he supports workers and often benefits from campaign contributions from labor unions. But he said he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.

Beyond the debt, the Newsom administration has said the fund is not collecting enough money to pay all of the benefits owed. The money comes from a tax businesses must pay on each worker. But that tax only applies to the first $7,000 of workers’ wages, a figure that has not changed since 1984 and is the lowest amount allowed under federal law.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unemployment is paid for by employers. Paying unemployment to striking workers is in effect forcing employers to keep paying their employees even though they're not working.

Keep in mind that California is an at-will employment state.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Just wanted to point out that "Right to work" is a union term.

California, like every U.S. state except Montana, employment is "at will," meaning that they can fire you for any reason (except for illegal ones like discrimination.)

[-] Rashnet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Right to work states are anti union.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Good to know.

[-] Rashnet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here's the AFL-CIO's take on right to work AFL-CIO

I used to be a union member in a right to work state and we had no union contract or protections until a democrat majority was voted in to the state government and passed a law allowing public safety unions to collectively bargain a contract with our employer.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

forcing employers to keep paying their employees even though they’re not working.

That's the whole fucking point of unemployment. The insurance rates are paid by companies, but it's not their money to direct as they please for their own benefit. They'd very much tell ex-employees to go fuck themselves if they could, but they're forced to pay into the fund that supports them.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

My point is that it's coercive and will drive businesses out of the state.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Regulation is coercive (and good). Businesses aren't maintaining safety standards and supporting their out-of-work employees out of pure altruism. The real objection for businesses is not that unemployment rates might be marginally higher (people are just regular unemployed way more often than they're striking), it's that this increases worker power.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

But when you're paying striking workers to strike, you're incentivizing them to never compromise as long as the benefits last, which would be up to 26 weeks. Besides being unable to afford it, the state would start to see longer strikes and businesses moving out. I feel dirty for saying it, but this time Newsom was right.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Unemployment isn't endless, isn't 100% of your pay, and doesn't allow you to take other work. It's still always financially better to go back to work. This is exactly the bullshit conservative argument against having unemployment at all, "it makes workers not want to work".

And yes, more monetary support for striking workers would increase worker power, I already said that. It wouldn't necessarily cause long strikes, but it would make employers unlikely to be able to starve out a strike. That's a good thing. Corporate/worker power is so amazingly out-of-balance that strikers are basically always in the right. Maybe with more power they could eventually get to the point where it would be abused, but currently anything that biases things towards workers is good.

[-] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

California is not right to work, that means that a person can work in a union shop without being a member of the union. You are thinking of at will.

this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
227 points (99.1% liked)

News

23634 readers
2291 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world