Posted on 08/23/2023 5:49:37 PM PDT by Libloather
A group of California Democrats are expected to propose handing out unemployment benefits to striking workers.
Language expected to be released in the coming days or weeks to provide striking workers with benefits from California's unemployment insurance program that is $18 billion in debt. The move comes amid historic strikes by both screenwriters and actors, forcing many movies and TV shows to halt production.
"It would allow individuals on strike who are not looking for work and were not let go through no fault of their own to claim unemployment insurance as if they were truly unemployed," California Chamber of Commerce Policy Advocate Rob Moutrie, who opposes the legislation, told Fox News.
"Striking people are not the same as people who truly have been let go and have no idea where their next paycheck will come from," Moutrie added. "But someone on strike knows where their job is."
Moutrie says labor advocates are capitalizing on the strike to push this policy proposal that they hoped to push through for years.
"A lot of politicians around that area feel that strike particularly powerfully and feel compelled to either support or speak about that strike," he said. "So, that really creates a political pressure that's different than other times."
Former state Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez introduced similar legislation in 2019 when the unemployment insurance program had a surplus, but it failed to become law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So the “union dues” aren’t enough to launder to the Dems for electi8n time?
Holy crap! Just when you think Dims have sunk no lower, they pull some other crap out from under their rocks.
What incentive would union workers have to go to the bargaining table when the taxpayer is paying them to stay home on there a$$?
That’ll get Meghan Markle to finally show up!
What the hell, it’s only government money... That’s not like it is real.
It sucks in many ways. They go back like six months. If an employee quits you, to work for someone else, and the new employer lays him off, they can use layoff that to determine your rate, even if you would have kept the employee all along.
Anyway, the employer, in this case, would be taxed to subsidize the very employees that are striking against him. How anyone thinks this is a good idea is beyond me. Then again, Democrats.
Union workers are not employees of the company. They gave up company benefits when they unionized. Why should the company pay for unemployment when the union covers strike pay?
Insane and destructive
But it’s the once- great state of Californication. What else could be expected?
They keep spending money like they have some of it.
so much for union strike funds...
I only worked for the Carpenters Union for 5 years.
There were many unions far more corrupt that the Carpenters but anyplace that teaches you that threats are the way to advance is the wrong place to learn ethics.
I despise employers that hire people 'under the table' to maximize their profits, but with these marxist mandated catch 22's I can see why an employer (especially one that employs seasonal workers) might have the incentive to do so in order to minimize their losses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.