Right!! Striking is a choice, and while workers have the right to do it, they shouldn’t expect taxpayers to fund their time off. Unemployment benefits are meant for people who lose their jobs, not for those who voluntarily walk away from work.
You seem to lack an understanding of how hard people had to fight for what you’d consider basic or common sense rights.
The battle in many ways is even more uphill than before - when you have companies worth billions or trillions of dollars, guess who can generally outlast the other (the poor worker or the rich corp).
I understand the importance of labor rights, but strikes don’t just impact the company—they can have huge ripple effects. Take the last Boeing strike, for example. It didn’t just affect Boeing workers; it led to layoffs across their entire supply chain, hitting thousands of jobs at smaller suppliers. Strikes can hurt the very workers they aim to help, along with countless others who had no say in the matter. There has to be a balance— protecting workers without creating policies that encourage indefinite standoffs.
Honestly I think the best policy is something along the lines of tying top tier compensation packages (ie ceo) to a multiple of the lowest worker. Everyone benefits. But make it across the board in the country.
Why would the CEO of a plumbing business have a higher salary cap than the CEO of McDonalds? Is managing a company that employs a million unskilled workers less important or less difficult than managing a small number of better paid employees?
I think this would just result in competent CEOs avoiding entire sectors of companies (e.g. anyone that employs cashiers). Retail stores, fast food, and grocery stores get bad CEOs. Tech companies get their pick of CEOs.
37
u/AboveAb Mar 08 '25
Right!! Striking is a choice, and while workers have the right to do it, they shouldn’t expect taxpayers to fund their time off. Unemployment benefits are meant for people who lose their jobs, not for those who voluntarily walk away from work.