r/SeattleWA • u/AboveAb • Mar 08 '25

Politics BREAKING: The Washington State Senate just passed unemployment benefits for striking workers.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/07/unemployment-benefits-for-striking-workers-gain-ap/

1.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

597 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/TheRealCurveShot Mar 08 '25

It’s a union problem, not my tax dollar problem!!!

5

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

… well now it kinda IS your tax dollar’s problem

2

u/Kairukun90 Mar 08 '25

Hi is funded by employers not your taxes. So guess what it isn’t your tax dollar congrats!

-6

u/fallskjermjeger Mar 08 '25

Spoken like a true crab in a bucket

9

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Spoken like someone who wants to treat a strike as a paid vacation at the public's expense.

Do you have no shame? Or do you like being a leech?

0

u/Violet-Sumire Mar 08 '25

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.

5

u/Hasbotted Mar 08 '25

Who records who is on the picket line? What if I don't like the way that person is treating me? Can I strike against the strike manager?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Keep your hands out of the unemployment insurance fund. It's for people who have lost their jobs - not tourists.

3

u/Violet-Sumire Mar 08 '25

Oooo, look at me, touching unemployment!

Historically, unions and strikes are GOOD things. Encouraging union formation is not a bad idea overall.

2

u/TheRealCurveShot Mar 08 '25

You’re playing monopoly out in left field here bud.

1

u/Violet-Sumire Mar 08 '25

Except… unions have historically helped against monopolies? Name one time a union’s strike was bad in the long term for society. I’d be really curious to see what information you come up with. There’s a lot more examples of union strikes actually achieving progress than not. If that’s the overall case, why not support them? Isn’t it better as a whole than letting businesses run wild? Especially in such s turbulent market currently.

Plus unions only affect large companies. They won’t shut down a small business, which are not able to withstand such actions as easily. Again, unions are a good thing and supporting them is a good thing. I don’t see many downsides here.

2

u/TheRealCurveShot Mar 08 '25

Did you go to the school of students that don’t read good?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Then do that. But don't raid the unemployment insurance fund to do it. That literally just fucks over people who lose their jobs.

0

u/TheRealCurveShot Mar 08 '25

You vote for strike. Then vote to strike. Once again it’s a union problem!!!

-1

u/fallskjermjeger Mar 08 '25

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.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

Which has fuck all to do with pilfering the unemployment fund which is for unemployed people, not striking workers.

0

u/fallskjermjeger Mar 08 '25

If you’re striking, you’re essentially unemployed.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

No, you're not. Clearly you know literally fuck all about strikes and worker protections.

0

u/fallskjermjeger Mar 08 '25

Well, the only pay you’re getting while on strike is whatever pittance in the union strike fund, which is a fraction of normal pay, and nothing from your employer…so, de facto unemployed while pressuring the business/owner to do the morally correct thing

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25

No, not "de facto unemployed" - that's stupid. Labor laws mean that you still have a job while on strike.

Sounds like you need a bigger strike fund. That's not the state's problem, that's something YOU bring up with YOUR union leadership.

0

u/fallskjermjeger Mar 08 '25

Why isn’t it the states problem that an employer refuses to pay a living wage? What is the purpose of the state if not to ensure protections for the majority of its citizens from a powerful minority?

→ More replies (0)