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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
I’m not. I’m in a Texas…
Yee haw, y’all… -ugly cries loudly-
I agree with you. Unions take money from workers and decide when to strike and not strike.
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.
lol.
In rejecting the bill, Newsom noted that the state’s unemployment trust fund is already nearing $20 billion in debt.
“Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt,” he wrote in a message explaining his veto.
Yup makes sense. The title could mention this at all. Knew there had to be some reason, because it’s stupid to do that with him posturing for president in the next run. I’d rather him have vetoed it and said if you want this passed then it needs to include further funding for the unemployment fund.
You read the article?!? This place really isn’t like Reddit at all.
Honestly I usually don’t HAVE to here, as often it’s posted in a summary that does a pretty good job. Not always though.
I don’t recommend you read the other comments then.
I really like when someone pastes the article in the post text or comments for this reason. Some people just don’t want to have to go to an external website, but would read the article if it were in front of them.
Also, one gets the feeling that the public would experience the negative effects of non-stop strike action, entirely paid for by the very taxpayers who would be negatively affected. This would become very, very unpopular. Not only that, but there are FAR less publicly disruptive policies that could achieve the same end goal of giving workers more power. Stronger labor boards with worker-friendly policies, mandatory arbitration, expandied union rights…there are so many other ways to give workers power.
Or am I missing something? I must be missing something. Otherwise, how did it get to the governor’s desk in the first place?
If I strike, I get strike pay from my union day one of the strike. The government should not be paying for striking members.
Makes sense, I don’t get unemployment pay for quitting due to low pay or my benefits not being good enough, this seems like a benefit the union should provide
yeah, isn’t that the point of unions?
Don’t ask them that. That means they actually have to pay out.
It’s like the union bosses are living a stereotype of a certain group of people who horde gold shekels.
Honestly tho, this is why unions have dues and memberships, rainy day funds and their own officers and treasury.
Unions are more than just '“walking out”.
Yeah it’s literally called a strike fund
They’re not unemployed or laid off. They’re on strike. They should NOT receive benefits intended for unemployed or laid off workers.
Exactly, Unions have strike funds for this very purposes.
deleted by creator
I support unions but this seems like it would give too much power to them. When you have guaranteed pay you can strike for just about any reason.
The point of a strike is that it hurts for both parties, so it has to be worth it.
No, the point of a strike is to put the hurt that the employees are already feeling on the employers
No one strikes to hurt themselves lol
When you have guaranteed pay you can strike for just about any reason.
Yay! Let’s do it then. Employers can stop paying for any reason.
Sorry we only bail out big banks, investment firms, airlines, and other filthy capitalists. Workers? Hell no! Murica would crumble if we helped working citizens!
They stopped working. They don’t need a bailout. The unions these workers give money to every paycheck are supposed to be going towards this stuff. Even if you sound like an idiot, I get what you’re trying to say but it doesn’t make sense to have a program for people being fired or laid off giving money to people who already have a source of income. It’s unemployment, not universal income.
Citizens who are literally choosing not to work, in this case.
There’s a difference between choosing to not work and refusing to be exploited. The world isn’t boolean and zero-sum, regardless of what capitalists say and do.
This right here is why all arguments supporting the veto are moronic. '08 financial crisis anyone. Wealthy assholes built a house of cards. When it collapsed they got to keep all the profits and we had to pick up the tab. Sorry if they get bailouts with no questions asked, then American people should get the same.
Sucks, for sure. Also sucks that there’s so much unemployment in CA that the fund is almost $20 billion in debt.
The AP article said it’s still not been paid back from the covid shutdowns and when the qualifications and time periods to receive it were expanded.
But I guess it’s easier to just make assumptions about California because that’s the popular thing to do lately.
THIS is what every headline and comment fails to mention. He did the right thing.
Unions getting bailed out by government gives them less leverage. Why bargain with the union if the government will just step in when it gets rough?
that makes no sense. Taking some risk out of striking makes it harder to dismiss the threat of a strike which increases the incentive businesses have to improve contracts. Its clear that the profits these businesses are making aren’t getting back to workers so more threats from unions makes the economy more stable.
What do you mean?
Newsom is absolutely getting ready to announce a run against Biden.
It’s already too late for him to do that. Some states are gonna start voting in the primaries in just a few months, and the cutoff date to be on the ballot is coming up fast. I think he’s positioning himself for a run in 2028.
true. But the party has the pull to “replace” the candidate if he were to die, have a stroke, or obviously become impaired. You know, like Biden is obviously impaired already. Harris obviously isn’t going to step up, so it will probably be Newsome.
deleted by creator
killing his shot at president in one veto.
Yeah, no way bruh. I’m independent and there’s zero chance I’d vote repub, ever. Newsom isn’t perfect, but I’d take him over any traitor republican shitcunt, any day.
Let’s be real this won’t impact his presidency campaign at all.
He’s still a better option than Biden or Trump.
I was thinking this is a stepping stone. Unions don’t get to strike and also take government unemployment funding. pick one.
I’m honestly surprised that Newsom did this veto. What a slap in the face to his constituent base!
Why? The other comments list a bunch of perfectly good reasons for this veto
