This is the best summary I could come up with:
Gavin Newsom vetoing a bill Saturday that had been inspired by high-profile work stoppages in Hollywood and the hotel industry.
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.
Labor unions had argued that the amount of workers on strike for more than two weeks is so small it would not have had a significant impact on the state’s unemployment trust fund.
Of the 56 strikes in California over the past decade, only two lasted longer than two weeks, according to Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino, the author of the bill.
“This veto tips the scales further in favor of corporations and CEOs and punishes workers who exercise their fundamental right to strike,” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.
The legislation was an attempt by Democratic state lawmakers to support Southern California hotel workers and Hollywood actors and writers who have been on strike for much of this year.
The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I thought the whole point of paying you union dues was that when a strike happens, the union covers a portion of your salary like unemployment.
It’s not an unlimited fund, which is why the UAW strike isn’t at every single plant for example. Policies like this would greatly strengthen unions by allowing much longer and more widespread strikes.
Strike pay is only $500 a week plus insurance coverage. It’s hard to live on that when strikes can last 6 months or even a year
Playing devil’s advocate but what would be the point in working if you got paid similarly by just striking? A worker’s strike is a gamble and always has been. In this instance the workers do not have the upper hand because demand for domestic made vehicles has plummeted and automation is nearly capable of replacing the workers.
Another thing I don’t understand is this isn’t unemployment. This is chosen by the worker and the union and so it’s not unemployment but refusal to work.
The other side of the argument is how can you get away with exploiting your workers if they have the option of striking comfortably?
I understand that. But a strike isn’t them being forced to stop working by their employer. It isn’t like being laid off. They chose to stop working when the alternative is to work and get paid.
You don’t get employment insurance when you voluntarily quit a job.
If they want a bigger strike pay, they need to either contribute more or join a bigger union that has the financial means to support them thanks to higher number of participants.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure UAW is the best paying strike pay in the US. It’s also the 6th biggest union. The point is that the company has a much bigger advantage for surviving a strike than workers do. Getting unemployment would help level the playing field.
What kind of strikes last 6 months to a year???
99% of strikes last much, much less. No manufacturer in the world can last 6 months without workers. No software company can last 6 months without workers. No fast food company lasts 6 months without workers. No train, bus or airplane company lasts 6 months without workers.
Small ones that you don’t hear about. Locals with less than 200 members wind up striking much longer because they’re less threatening. The longest strike in US history was 11 years. Strikes can last longer than you might think. The company just hires scabs. A couple years ago, 200 miners were on strike for 1029 days under the United Steelworkers.
I’m rabidly pro-union but I’m OK with this. The union should provide.
Employers should be forced to pay striking workers anyways. Fuck em. Burn the whole system to the ground, it’s exploitative and abusive and it has extracted untold wealth from the working class for centuries.
"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.
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
I want to know more about the fraud. At what level is/was the fraud happening?
If only workers paid into the unemployment fund every paycheck, then there’d be no argument for keeping their money from them. Oh, wait… we do.
That’s not how tax incidence works. A tax is applied to the transaction, and its burden depends on who has more bargaining power, not on who writes the check.
It’s called FUTA. Look it up. Also, there’s likely a state equivalent wherever you reside.
