• Chetzemoka@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    "he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.

    The fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits is already more than $18 billion in debt. That’s because the fund ran out of money and had to borrow from the federal government during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered most businesses to close and caused a massive spike in unemployment. The fund was also beset by massive amounts of fraud that cost the state billions of dollars."

    The reasoning and background, if anyone is curious

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Striking workers should get unemployment checks. Striking workers are unable to work due to no fault of their own. That’s what unemployment is supposed to cover.

    A strike can only legally happen if contract negotiations are not making progress. If negotiations have reached an impasse, the union can chose to strike, or management can choose to lockout the workers. As long as the union’s side of the negotiating table are bargaining in good faith, neither a strike nor a lockout is the fault of the workers. Therefore in any just world they would be eligible for unemployment.

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on the union. Strike funds are a good idea. Many unions have them. But there are many expenses in operating any organization, and the dues cover all expenses of the union.

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

      Striking workers are literally employed and strike wages are paid out of union dues.

  • bestnerd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s a really weird take for someone who looks to be trying to run in the ‘28 race. Why this stance over all the others you’ve taken? This would have been a grand slam policy along with the others he’s approved this minth

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      He also vetoed a few other progressive bills. He’s gone from a “politically uninspiring, but at least he’s got fight” to “no, thanks” with this active hippy punching shit. He didn’t even need to do anything, passively signing bills that were voted on by his legislature wouldn’t blow back on him at all, but he’s actively signaling hostility to progressives because he wants to curry favor with people that oppose them.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is it weird? Unions will endorse him no matter what he does because he’s running against the red team, might as well fuck them over.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some people seem to think that Democrats need to actually do things to keep the unions loyal, like American politics is about trading favors and negotiating alliances. In reality all the Democrats need to do is point at the Republican boogeyman and the unions fall in line.

          • bestnerd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. The dems need to show more to the unions. But if they do that then they lose the donations from the bigger corporations. No matter what it’s a lose lose game for the workers

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A labor party would definitely have less money to work with, but more volunteers and their volunteers would more enthusiastic.

              It would get ugly, though. America’s government doesn’t like labor parties.

  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unemployment is paid for by employers. Paying unemployment to striking workers is in effect forcing employers to keep paying their employees even though they’re not working.

    Keep in mind that California is an at-will employment state.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just wanted to point out that “Right to work” is a union term.

      California, like every U.S. state except Montana, employment is “at will,” meaning that they can fire you for any reason (except for illegal ones like discrimination.)

          • Rashnet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Here’s the AFL-CIO’s take on right to work AFL-CIO

            I used to be a union member in a right to work state and we had no union contract or protections until a democrat majority was voted in to the state government and passed a law allowing public safety unions to collectively bargain a contract with our employer.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      forcing employers to keep paying their employees even though they’re not working.

      That’s the whole fucking point of unemployment. The insurance rates are paid by companies, but it’s not their money to direct as they please for their own benefit. They’d very much tell ex-employees to go fuck themselves if they could, but they’re forced to pay into the fund that supports them.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • BaldProphet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year 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.

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      California is not right to work, that means that a person can work in a union shop without being a member of the union. You are thinking of at will.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unemployment is for people who are willing to work but have yet to find a new job. Turning down a job disqualifies one for unemployment.

    • Cabrio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They haven’t turned down a job, they’re in contract negotiations for a job they want to work.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can turn down positions that are not a side grade or better of your current position and still collect unemployment.

      I can always work at McDonald’s, but if I get laid off I’m not going to go work at McDonald’s.

  • Ilovethebomb
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well yeah, if you have a job but refuse to do it, you’re not unemployed.