Is he gonna drop the ball on this like he did on universal healthcare?
Let's wait and see
In one hand, voluntary unemployment funded by taxes seems unfair.
On the other, fuck the man. The wealth imbalance needs to be fixed and this is a step in the correct direction.
Unfair how? It's paid by employers, so kinda makes sense to me, i.e. employer caused the loss of livelihood, so they pay for the benefit to the recently unemployed.
The employer is, presumably, willing to pay them to work, just not at the rate the workers want.
Going on strike is voluntary.
So is firing people, for a boss. The thing is the vote is voluntary, the results are not. "voluntary" is not a good way to describe things like strikes because eventually there are disputes, they are "inevitable".
No one was talking about getting or being fired. The boss wants them to work with the compensation they were offering.
The workers decided they wanted different compensation.
The workers are free to all stop working at once, but just like if you decide to quit, you’re normally not allowed to collect unemployment.
Again, I’m for this. I think everyone that is working should have the minimum needed to survive at the very least, and it’s abhorrent that we don’t have that.
If you earn more money on unemployment when striking than by actually working, there is a serious problem with how work is valued.
I'm not in or from the US, but I'm guessing unemployment doesn't pay enough to live the good life? Should just be enough to keep you alive?
If you want to leave you shouldn't worry about starving in the pursuit of better employment imo
Unemployment probably won't even cover your bills, but will let you hemorrhage money slower
Then I really don't see the issue. Not like people would willingly put themselves in that kind of situation without a reason
In the US if you want to leave your job, you won’t get unemployment. If you’re laid off you can.
I agree with you that it’s wrong, but that’s how it currently works in the US.
Unemployment is not for when people decide to leave a job. It’s for when your employer lays you off. Going on strike is much different than being laid off.
SB-799 give Strikers the right to receive unemployment
What the hell is that website? It screams very anti-choice.
You would think? Shockingly nothing in this site talks about pro or anti choice. Mostly talks about anti austery, paid leave, yimby stuff, WFH, etc
This user always posts from that website. It seems primarily aimed at criticizing austerity measures but it’s super bizarre. No mention of who is actually putting this research together.
Like I agree that austerity measures suck and that if you want a family you should be able to afford one, but phrasing it as “stop population decline” is just… weird? Like the examples aren’t bad exactly but the entire presentation and motivations behind the website sets off some serious red flags.
Saw it on Reddit and Google News, and ended up finding my self posting from it over and over
Totally fine not trying to say you’re up to something nefarious haha. Just saying that a source I only see from one user that itself is pretty opaque about sourcing and intent makes me approach it cautiously.
Don't get me wrong, I like posting from this site in part the name raise eyebrows despite the articles being shocking reliable
Is he gonna drop the ball on this like he did on universal healthcare?
Let's wait and see
In one hand, voluntary unemployment funded by taxes seems unfair.
On the other, fuck the man. The wealth imbalance needs to be fixed and this is a step in the correct direction.
Unfair how? It's paid by employers, so kinda makes sense to me, i.e. employer caused the loss of livelihood, so they pay for the benefit to the recently unemployed.
The employer is, presumably, willing to pay them to work, just not at the rate the workers want.
Going on strike is voluntary.
So is firing people, for a boss. The thing is the vote is voluntary, the results are not. "voluntary" is not a good way to describe things like strikes because eventually there are disputes, they are "inevitable".
No one was talking about getting or being fired. The boss wants them to work with the compensation they were offering.
The workers decided they wanted different compensation.
The workers are free to all stop working at once, but just like if you decide to quit, you’re normally not allowed to collect unemployment.
Again, I’m for this. I think everyone that is working should have the minimum needed to survive at the very least, and it’s abhorrent that we don’t have that.
If you earn more money on unemployment when striking than by actually working, there is a serious problem with how work is valued.
I'm not in or from the US, but I'm guessing unemployment doesn't pay enough to live the good life? Should just be enough to keep you alive?
If you want to leave you shouldn't worry about starving in the pursuit of better employment imo
Unemployment probably won't even cover your bills, but will let you hemorrhage money slower
Then I really don't see the issue. Not like people would willingly put themselves in that kind of situation without a reason
In the US if you want to leave your job, you won’t get unemployment. If you’re laid off you can.
I agree with you that it’s wrong, but that’s how it currently works in the US.
Unemployment is not for when people decide to leave a job. It’s for when your employer lays you off. Going on strike is much different than being laid off.
SB-799 give Strikers the right to receive unemployment
What the hell is that website? It screams very anti-choice.
You would think? Shockingly nothing in this site talks about pro or anti choice. Mostly talks about anti austery, paid leave, yimby stuff, WFH, etc
This user always posts from that website. It seems primarily aimed at criticizing austerity measures but it’s super bizarre. No mention of who is actually putting this research together.
Like I agree that austerity measures suck and that if you want a family you should be able to afford one, but phrasing it as “stop population decline” is just… weird? Like the examples aren’t bad exactly but the entire presentation and motivations behind the website sets off some serious red flags.
Saw it on Reddit and Google News, and ended up finding my self posting from it over and over
Totally fine not trying to say you’re up to something nefarious haha. Just saying that a source I only see from one user that itself is pretty opaque about sourcing and intent makes me approach it cautiously.
Don't get me wrong, I like posting from this site in part the name raise eyebrows despite the articles being shocking reliable