this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
161 points (73.2% liked)

News

23305 readers
3994 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TerryMathews@lemmy.world 162 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.org 12 points 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 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You read the article?!? This place really isn't like Reddit at all.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 8 points 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.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don't recommend you read the other comments then.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 4 points 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 12 points 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 65 points 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 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] luckyhunter@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah, isn't that the point of unions?

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't ask them that. That means they actually have to pay out.

[–] luckyhunter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's like the union bosses are living a stereotype of a certain group of people who horde gold shekels.

[–] artisanrox@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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".

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's literally called a strike fund

[–] thismessisaplace@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] luckyhunter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Exactly, Unions have strike funds for this very purposes.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 34 points 1 year ago

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

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

No one strikes to hurt themselves lol

[–] artisanrox@kbin.social 11 points 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.

[–] rivermonster@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Sorry we only bail out big banks, investment firms, airlines, and other filthy capitalists. Workers? Hell no! Murica would crumble if we helped working citizens!

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 4 points 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.

[–] 726a67@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Citizens who are literally choosing not to work, in this case.

[–] rivermonster@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a difference between choosing to not work and refusing to be exploited. The world isn't boolean and zero-sum, regardless of what capitalists say and do.

[–] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net -3 points 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.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 19 points 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.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

THIS is what every headline and comment fails to mention. He did the right thing.

[–] panja@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What do you mean?

[–] luckyhunter@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Newsom is absolutely getting ready to announce a run against Biden.

[–] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -5 points 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.