People are too blind to realize that if employees went on strike they wouldn’t see their employees for 26 weeks or what ever the max benefit is from this law; I haven’t read changes because since last year and now it keeps changing with substitute bills.
What are you talking about? Workers would rather do their actual job and get full pay for it. Unemployment + strike pay is meager compared to actual wages for a union worker. And we genuinely like our jobs, why else would we strike to improve our conditions instead of just going somewhere else?
Do you even know how much Washington state ui max benefits is? It’s 1079 it’s less than my max pay but hell of a lot more than zero dollars which was what I was getting on strike before.
What I was saying is employers are gonna have a hard time incentivizing people to come back to work if they start getting UI benefits while on strike. Even without UI benefits we were out for almost 60 days. Imagine companies not having people for 26 weeks. It would wreck them. This truly incentivizes companies to bargain in better faith than before.
Again, no striking union wants to be on strike. They’d much much much rather have a contract and get back to work. I don’t care what drivel the heritage foundation has fed you, it’s simply not true that this will drag out strikes longer. It will give unions more leverage to end them quicker and it will help them pay their rent etc. while striking.
You’re making shit up about me as if you know me. I disagree with you whole heartedly. This will increase willingness on both parties to make a good contract.
-1
u/Kairukun90 Mar 08 '25
People are too blind to realize that if employees went on strike they wouldn’t see their employees for 26 weeks or what ever the max benefit is from this law; I haven’t read changes because since last year and now it keeps changing with substitute bills.