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.
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.
My point is that it’s coercive and will drive businesses out of the state.
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.
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.)
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.
They could choose to be scabs, so I don’t see how it’s not a choice for the workers.
I still think they should get unemployment benefits, or some other type of payment, but you don’t have to be part of a strike. You don’t even have to be part of a union to strike, as you are asserting.
Being a scab is against the rules of nearly every union. And California law requires all employees of unionized workplaces to be members of the union. Would be pretty unfair for the state to deny unemployment because you could break the bylaws of the union that the state required you to join.
Strikes are a legally recognized thing. There’s no way the state would provide unemployment to illegal strikes.
Well yeah, if you have a job but refuse to do it, you’re not unemployed.
Unemployment is for people who are willing to work but have yet to find a new job. Turning down a job disqualifies one for unemployment.
"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
