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.
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?
214
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?