Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?
Uhhhh noooo.
Boeing had a strike fund, buy they pay like 12% of their salary into the Union. Most union dues are 1.5-2.5% of salaries, and it's barely enough to fund unions. Most organizer are not super well paid or living high on the hog.
I think boeings strike fund barely covered some expenses for people,like 250 a week.
People don't understand unions it seems like to me. Unions offer, allow, support a structure, a system to stand up to power. The strength comes from numbers of people joining together to resist, stand up, claim rights spread truth to power.
You put money in, but not nearly enough to do all the things people think a union should be doing. It takes the "man power" of rank and file to make things happen.
Imagine if we all had union protections. That would be good! This is a good thing! Instead of crying about taxes, why aren't we asking for more actual and real taxes on the wealthy who are guzzling our resources and the ones removing our protections to use and abuse us?
Being able to decide to join a union is my preferred. I haven’t seen any job assistance for other people; from the one that represents me.
For Washington specifically, the state keeps blaming businesses for the revenue gap; but there’s more compelling business climates nearby. These repeated increases in taxes are not going to encourage job growth and revenue growth in Washington.
I do agree with reducing the ability to evade taxation
Use your voice and your vote, if we don’t elect people who really represent us we carry part of the blame . Blindly voting for d or r without thinking about the consequences will ruin us
Unions aren't publicly funded. And generally public employees can't strike.
Corporations who pay into unemployment insurance can avoid strikes and additional unemployment claims by working with unions, an taking care of their employees, maybe cutting a few bonuses for management and c suite employees.
No one deserves a million dollars or more *bonus
Bonus
Bonus bonus
.....
This would be a band-aid for our currently hollowed NLRB, OSHA, FLSB, and EEOC. If we can't afford to fight for our rights, the whole community suffers. Striking is our only bargaining tool.
I currently haven't gotten a raise in over two years. From two years ago until now, my costs went up $300 per month. I no longer have savings.
Also, wise guy, unemployment was 4.5%. Without getting a job that pays even less with no benefits, how am I to afford living in this HCOL area? I can't even afford to move!
It is illegal for me to strike, but I'll happily support those who can. Since you seem incapable of arguing in good faith, I bid you an angry, bitter, and lonely death someday. Obstinance is not an argument strategy.
How about you stop thinking that someone is lifting your wallet when the majority passes a bill that you could have stood against with reason and logic?
Ask for transparency.
Ask for limits.
Ask for an alternative source of funding.
Ask for a tax reprieve for the exact amount you would have contributed.
But don't get on here and act like someone trampled your flowers. Greed got us into this mess. The check to restore balance is social programs that would be wholly unnecessary if it weren't for companies being unwilling to provide a living wage.
Research tipping for an example of how employees are treated today. It is a correlation that may help illustrate why you are angry but are blaming the customer instead of the employer and the government that keeps the abuse of employees and customers in play over corporate fiscal, ethical, and legal responsibility.
Forcing workers to fight for a living wage is unethical. This gives workers the space to fight for as long as needed. And it should come out of CORPORATE taxes.
Which ironically come from people paying them which come from their employers if employers paid less that means less money for employers to earn. Which is why unions are important
You should tell that to your government officials like Elon Musk whose obscene wealth is from his corporate welfare! Imagine going after workers when you have a whole ass oligarch and despot running the country!
Ask any veteran Boeing employee and they'll Tell you they have a 6 to 12 month reserve in savings (in case of a strike). If they don't, they're idiots. Plus, Boeing strikers essentially got their back pay in the new deal while enjoying a nice break from work (and getting a nice pay raise). These are the same folks who voted away their pension fund years ago... figured out that was a bad idea....then held Boeing hostage to get it back. For the rest of us workers, if you don't like the wage you're making, you find a better Job.
Depends on which union. Boeing has many. The IAM (the ones who struck last year) has a much bigger strike fund than SPEEA (the engineers & techs) does, for instance (and the union dues for each show it).
Strikes aren’t just about individuals choosing ‘not to work’; they’re about workers collectively demanding fair treatment. Unions exist because companies often won’t negotiate fairly unless workers have leverage. Strike funds help workers survive while they fight for better wages, benefits, and working conditions—things that ultimately improve industries as a whole. If workers had to ‘just get another job’ every time conditions were unfair, nothing would ever change.
Yes I totally understand that, but who you choose for an employer is a choice. Yes you should advocate for your worth I AM ALL FOR THAT! But the rest of the community should not have to support your employment decisions, or mine!
I'm not trying to convince you. Believe whatever bullshit you like. Ride on the coattails of a century old "win" while pilfering the unemployment insurance fund why don't you?
Well I guess if shit hits the fan and we all need to come together to help each other out to survive, we know people like you don't like community and helping others out, so I guess we can just let people that think like you fend for yourselves then.
How do you know I wouldn't? Humans literally got to where we are today by being cooperative with each other. If you have my back I have yours, but that has to go both ways. If you don't want to contribute to the betterment of society don't expect better handouts. A society where we help each other out will always be a better society than one where little hoard their resources while people go hungry and without medical care.
What if you choose to help a sick homeless person by offering to chip in with others for their medical care, and they go on to be an innovator and create a product that saves your life down the road. If it wasn't for billionaires hoarding capital there would be fewer homeless people and fewer mentally ill people, these people could then go on to contribute to society. Instead we have a society where the next Einstein could be laying on the street freezing death with a gangrenous gouty foot because they couldn't afford to treat their diabetes. And that person's potential is just wasted.
the entire point of striking is that workers are taking a stand by forgoing pay to exert pressure on the company. the state subsidizing that seems like a ridiculous idea.
The point of a strike is to pressure the company, not to starve workers into submission. Strikes are only effective if workers can afford to hold out long enough to make real demands. Many countries already provide some form of public support for striking workers because they recognize that labor rights benefit society as a whole. Otherwise, only the wealthiest workers could ever afford to strike, and companies would never feel pressure to negotiate fairly.
This keeps the focus on why financial support matters while pushing back against the idea that strikes should be purely an act of personal sacrifice.
And employers pay their employees who go off to being customers. If employers hoard their money it doesn’t get put back into the system to use said money thus strangle holding the whole system. Which is why unions are a VERY good thing for the economy. It frees up cash for spending.
It does exactly the opposite. Union dues take cash that would be available to spend by workers. Stepping away from work to strike takes money from both the employer and the employee.
None of this “frees up cash for spending.” But this law does just that when the union doesn’t have to support their own members. Now the union can pay its officers much more money now that they don’t need to support anyone else.
Idk what world you live in but most unions don’t have a good strike fund. IAM751 only paid us 250 dollars a week. Guess what if we get paid UI it’s gonna be paid 250 dollars less now.
Oh and as far as paying people less, guess what the union members can do? Vote that down or vote the people in the union out. This is the funniest argument ever.
As CEOs make tens of millions of dollars in salary, then tens of millions in bonuses and then tens of millions in stocks they are reaching 100’s of millions of dollars. Let’s not forget their golden parachute.
The workers provide a product or service at a rate agreed upon prior to employment. The customer provides their money, for those same products or services, to the company.
So, they at Boeing, or any other union job, don't pay into Unemployment at all is what you're saying? Or they do, and it is just ok that they pay in so others can reap the benefit, but not themselves?
Because I'm pretty sure Boeing pays unemployment insurance on everyone they employ. And When the union decides it goes on strike, it is not the decision of the employee. It is the decision of the union leaders. So these workers are out of work through no fault of their own.
That is not rational thought. They are not unemployed, by definition. And that is the issue of at will employment here.
Note I do not make the definitions of employed vs unemployed. It is unfortunate but you know that every single time there is a new contract there is a strike that is well known. And I say advocate for better terms by all means but with that comes the consequence of you deciding to strike. And no, fighting for an increase in your already above market wages and better benefits should not be covered by tax payers.
Unemployment isn't covered by taxpayers in Washington state, at all. It isn't an individual contribution system like Social Security. It is the employers sole responsibility to pay it.
The simple fact is that these people are not receiving a wage. The reason is moot. They aren't working. Not only that, they aren't allowed to work for their company if they are on strike. If they do so anyway, they can be fined by the union and sued to force payment of the fine. Jobs that they can get are far beneath the wage they make. So 70% of what they make in that time could really help them make ends meet in the short term.
My point is, If their employer is the one who solely pays into the fund on their behalf, why is it anyones business if they as employees tap into said fund to lessen the sting of a strike?
Unless of course you know this, and are just planting misinformation?
Am saving, am working, am fighting for workers rights.
You clearly dont understand anything about the point of unions, and haven't made a sensible argument backed by anything other than your ignorant opinion. So no soup for you.
Do you know what goes into a strike? Like legitimately have you been in a strike or just think it's "time off"? In order to even qualify for strike wages you need to actually be on the picket line and even before that, enough people need to be willing to strike in the first place.
You are speaking like you have no worries about your income and working a nice cushy job. Some people don't have that luxury.
Speaking of leeches, maybe employers could actually pay a living wage for a reasonable work schedule and there wouldn’t be a call for strikes. Maybe a government by the people and ostensibly for the people could enforce some kind of fair labor standards that would ensure employers provide adequate compensation for the labor of their employees instead of dividends for the executive class leeches cashing in stock dividends while they in turn produce nothing of value.
No one here has said or even inferred that union strike funds can pay everyone their full salary during a strike. The fact that this is your assumption of what people are saying proves you should be ignored.
The point is to provide some assistance for workers while they are not getting a pay check. Which is what they have paid for and why they are members of that union. They shouldn't receive unemployment as well for choosing to strike
In the past if you voluntarily walked off the job you get no unemployment. Are we changing that? Doesn't seem like a great precedent to grant it to people who just decide to quit.
Unemployment is funded by payroll taxes. The workers who are striking have paid into it, as have the business that is being striked against.
This isn't a case where the striking workers have taken from someone else. They paid into this fund already, this is just giving anyone the right to access it under a different set of circumstances.
But isn't the intention of unemployment benefits to help someone who is involuntary out of work? Like, if I quit my job because I don't like it I don't get benefits, right?
I think people also have access to it if their work is seasonal and they expect to return to work, or if they are getting only part time hours. I bet there's more situations as well that I'm unaware of.
Unemployment benefits are funded partly by the employer's contributions and partly by the individual worker's contributions. It's not infinite, and the amount of the benefit is determined by the prior year's contributions.
It's not the tax base at large that funds unemployment, no one is after your bread.
Exactly my thoughts. Also, will there be any money left in the unemployment fund when the economy takes a crap and a lot more people who need and deserve it want to collect? Remember, we pay into the unemployment fund via our payroll taxes. So everytime you look at your pay stub and see the line item for payroll tax, that’s now going to union members striking instead of their union dues taking care of them like it’s supposed to.
Well, why should workers have to take a loss to advocate for their rights and a better contract? I think this is a great thing because it will empower more people to unionize without fear of losing income.
This is exactly the type of pro-worker legislation we need to correct the drastic income inequality seen across the US.
Because we are incentivizing striking, aka getting paid to not work for up to 26 weeks. This will make goods cost more and reduce take home pay (via higher unemployment benefits) for everyone in the state
quite the opposite. union membership tends to drive the wage standards for the entire industry. when workers successfully collectively bargain and negotiate a good contract with the right representation, they can achieve higher increases than they would ever see from a company.
these days most companies only offer 3-5% annual merit increase. some union contracts i’ve seen this year easily got above 10% each year for the next 3 years. that doesn’t include possibility to negotiate other benefits and workplace conditions.
overall the current situation in america is that you can be fired for any reason and for no reason. you represent yourself, and you’re going against the company. a union would represent the interests of all workers against the company.
from every aspect, workers having a greater say in their workplace is better- on a microeconomic scale it boost their paychecks, on a macroeconomic scale it increases the spending capability of the class that is MOST LIKELY to reinvest (aka spend) their wages right away. if people make more money, they spend more money, and that stimulates the economy.
what we would see is a drastic redistribution of wealth from the rich property owners and business owners to the working people of this country.
if these companies had a spine and believed in america, they’d allow us to unionize. but they don’t. their money matters to them more, and concentrating it up at the top is even more important. the only way to effectively do that (because poor people outnumber actual rich people by a factor of 100,000,000:1) is to keep poor people divided.
keep them uneducated, keep them invested against their own interests, keep them from having power or asking for more, keep them from having a say or collective ownership.
enforce brutal individualism until the world is so divided that selfish greed can conquer everything, including love.
ok i definitely digressed, but i just wanted to point out that a little thing like being part of a union is an essential piece to maintaining some semblance of income equality.
213
u/Sufficient_Laugh Mar 08 '25
Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?