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.

  • TerryMathews@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you. Unions take money from workers and decide when to strike and not strike.

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

  • Ejh3k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I strike, I get strike pay from my union day one of the strike. The government should not be paying for striking members.

  • stuffmeister217@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • artisanrox@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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”.

  • thismessisaplace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re not unemployed or laid off. They’re on strike. They should NOT receive benefits intended for unemployed or laid off workers.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the point of a strike is to put the hurt that the employees are already feeling on the employers

    • artisanrox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sucks, for sure. Also sucks that there’s so much unemployment in CA that the fund is almost $20 billion in debt.

    • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Panja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • halfempty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m honestly surprised that Newsom did this veto. What a slap in the face to his constituent base!

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? The other comments list a bunch of perfectly good reasons for this veto