California Governor Gavin Newsom on Saturday vetoed a bill that would have paid unemployment benefits to striking workers, and had drawn strong support from labor unions and from his fellow Democrats in the state legislature.

Fuck you, Newsome. I think pay for striking workers would be overwhelmingly popular with voters. I’m voting against this turkey next chance I get.

  • TerryMathews@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1697·
    9 months ago

    They’re not unemployed or underemployed by any common definition of those words. If California wants to support striking workers, great, but it shouldn’t be under these programs.

    And realistically there’s no reason why this isn’t a Union problem to solve instead of a government one. Dues are paid for a reason.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      177·
      9 months ago

      Hmm. You might have persuaded me. I’ll have to think about it and see.

      However, the reason I came out in support of the idea is because our system is already dramatically rigged in favor of employers and I think there would be some justice in tipping the scales at a policy level.

      But I’ll have to consider your points further before I can weigh things properly.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      144·
      9 months ago

      Could you imagine part of your dues going to “long-term strike insurance?” Whichever financial institution figures that out won’t be playing 4D Chess, they’ll be wiping their ass on both sides of the board and then telling you that you get the first move.

    • Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
      1259·
      9 months ago

      I agree with you. Unions take money from workers and decide when to strike and not strike.

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        3911·
        9 months ago

        No, a union is made up of workers and they vote on whether or not to strike.

        This bill would be like one good thing they do for workers, but of course they won’t because it would harm their “donors” who already have more than enough.