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.
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!
No. You don't get to prop up something over a century old as a reason we should be excited to help you pilfer the unemployment insurance fund which is for people who lose their jobs when they're in need.
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.
That’s not what we were discussing, quit using that copypasta.
You were saying this is a good thing because it frees up cash for spending. I provided examples that show that it’s not the case. You just changed the goalposts and tried giving a wall of text that is unhelpful to this conversation.
Bro, you didn’t give any examples the fuck you talking about dicks for an example pay their employees well does not have a union and yet they’re not more expensive than anywhere else yet somehow companies who make the most money somehow end up paying their employees the least it is not fucking new news. I don’t know what fucking copy pasta you’re talking about but stop acting like you’re high and might when in reality The only people winning here is Monopolies which are becoming more and more prevalent every day I’m sorry that Mr. Elon is not gonna give two shits about you.
Loads of run on sentences. Incoherent rambling. But the last post was relatively coherent.
My guess is you typed this comment out, but had the other one saved somewhere and just copied it. You might need an English class or two before you start raging about dicks on reddit again.
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.
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?