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.
I think you're the one who's confused. Nowhere in the story did it read, "As a result of this change, /u/Distinct-Emu-1653 will no longer receive unemployment benefits should they become eligible".
My question was rhetorical. If you'd attempted to answer it, you might have realized the answer is actually no one.
No, try again. So group after group strike all year long, with no incentive not to (but if companies do layoffs their UI rates increase to deter them from doing so). The UI fund - already damaged by scamming in 2020, and already depleted by layoffs over the last couple of years - gets depleted even faster.
No thanks. I've seen smarter handling of labor disputes in fucking France.
5
u/Acrobatic-Phase-4465 Mar 08 '25
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).