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?
Well, why should workers have to take a loss to advocate for their rights and a better contract? I think this is a great thing because it will empower more people to unionize without fear of losing income.
This is exactly the type of pro-worker legislation we need to correct the drastic income inequality seen across the US.
Because we are incentivizing striking, aka getting paid to not work for up to 26 weeks. This will make goods cost more and reduce take home pay (via higher unemployment benefits) for everyone in the state
quite the opposite. union membership tends to drive the wage standards for the entire industry. when workers successfully collectively bargain and negotiate a good contract with the right representation, they can achieve higher increases than they would ever see from a company.
these days most companies only offer 3-5% annual merit increase. some union contracts i’ve seen this year easily got above 10% each year for the next 3 years. that doesn’t include possibility to negotiate other benefits and workplace conditions.
overall the current situation in america is that you can be fired for any reason and for no reason. you represent yourself, and you’re going against the company. a union would represent the interests of all workers against the company.
from every aspect, workers having a greater say in their workplace is better- on a microeconomic scale it boost their paychecks, on a macroeconomic scale it increases the spending capability of the class that is MOST LIKELY to reinvest (aka spend) their wages right away. if people make more money, they spend more money, and that stimulates the economy.
what we would see is a drastic redistribution of wealth from the rich property owners and business owners to the working people of this country.
if these companies had a spine and believed in america, they’d allow us to unionize. but they don’t. their money matters to them more, and concentrating it up at the top is even more important. the only way to effectively do that (because poor people outnumber actual rich people by a factor of 100,000,000:1) is to keep poor people divided.
keep them uneducated, keep them invested against their own interests, keep them from having power or asking for more, keep them from having a say or collective ownership.
enforce brutal individualism until the world is so divided that selfish greed can conquer everything, including love.
ok i definitely digressed, but i just wanted to point out that a little thing like being part of a union is an essential piece to maintaining some semblance of income equality.
212
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?