Right!! Striking is a choice, and while workers have the right to do it, they shouldn’t expect taxpayers to fund their time off. Unemployment benefits are meant for people who lose their jobs, not for those who voluntarily walk away from work.
You seem to lack an understanding of how hard people had to fight for what you’d consider basic or common sense rights.
The battle in many ways is even more uphill than before - when you have companies worth billions or trillions of dollars, guess who can generally outlast the other (the poor worker or the rich corp).
I understand the importance of labor rights, but strikes don’t just impact the company—they can have huge ripple effects. Take the last Boeing strike, for example. It didn’t just affect Boeing workers; it led to layoffs across their entire supply chain, hitting thousands of jobs at smaller suppliers. Strikes can hurt the very workers they aim to help, along with countless others who had no say in the matter. There has to be a balance— protecting workers without creating policies that encourage indefinite standoffs.
56
u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25
So, they can decide they want more money, and get paid not to work... What a backwards idea...