▲ 230 ▼ California governor rejects bill to give unemployment checks to striking workers (thehill.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) My point is that it's coercive and will drive businesses out of the state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent