Posted on 03/19/2025 8:22:01 AM PDT by Salman
Washington lawmakers are revisiting a bill that would extend unemployment insurance to workers on strike. The bill was reintroduced this year by Sen. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, reviving debate among labor advocates and business associations.
“Without a social safety net during a strike, workers are faced with tremendous pressures to end the strike quickly or never go on strike in the first place,” Riccelli said in public testimony. “I think this levels the playing field.”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at columbiabasinherald.com ...
Now the big unions have wealthy bosses who want the taxpayers to be their strike fund.
Just more wealthy clients of the Democratic Party theft machine, and I don't mean striking workers.
Why should taxpayers pay for workers to voluntarily stopped working? If the gov’t wants to be neutral in such things, they should give an equal amount to the businesses being struck. This is not the intent of unemployment compensation and it was never intended for workers on strike. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Should the bill lower corporate tax on the business while the strike is going on?
I want unemployment if I quit and come back to the workplace with a spoiled chicken casserole that I put in the company kitchen and paint naked chicks in the parking lot.
IT’S MY BASIC HUMAN RIGHT
This is pure BS and lets people walk off their jobs and be paid NOT TO WORK.
So the business makes no money, but the workers do? How is that “levelling the playing field”?
State tax rates and wage bases vary, and employers may also be subject to state unemployment insurance taxes (SUTA).
In Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, both employers and employees pay SUTA tax.
Employers can receive a credit reduction of up to 5.4% on the FUTA tax if they pay their SUTA taxes in full and on time.
But I agree with you, that the unions should be responsible for supporting their union members as they make the decision to strike. It should not come from any other source.
Labor, management and owners are all ultimately on the same team to provide goods and services that attract buyers/clients in the free market.
There is plenty of room for labor, management and owners to fight out their differences on myriad issues, including pay, benefits and working conditions. That’s all fair game.
But ultimately, the marketplace exerts discipline on all three. If a strike goes on too long, the company goes out of business and everyone loses.
Turning strikes into a no risk proposition to one party out of the three does not level the playing field. It puts government into full support of an extortion racket.
It is Washington state’s problem, not mine. Votes have consequences. Let them pay out the nose. Just don’t ask the rest of the country to bail them out.
Minue the usual, ah, shall we say “campaign donations”?
The Oregon legislature is doing the same thing this session.
In Oregon, where this same legislation is being considered, many strikes are against local school districts.
.
As I recall; unemployment can be collected after 6 months of employment.
So theoretically, a company’s employees can go on strike every 6 months to force their demands on management.
How fair can you get.
Let their union pay them not to work!!
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.