The fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits is already more than $18 billion in debt. That’s because the fund ran out of money and had to borrow from the federal government during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered most businesses to close and caused a massive spike in unemployment. The fund was also beset by massive amounts of fraud that cost the state billions of dollars."

The reasoning and background, if anyone is curious

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 53 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I thought the whole point of paying you union dues was that when a strike happens, the union covers a portion of your salary like unemployment.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not an unlimited fund, which is why the UAW strike isn't at every single plant for example. Policies like this would greatly strengthen unions by allowing much longer and more widespread strikes.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Which is where Newsome’s line is.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Strike pay is only $500 a week plus insurance coverage. It's hard to live on that when strikes can last 6 months or even a year

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What kind of strikes last 6 months to a year???

99% of strikes last much, much less. No manufacturer in the world can last 6 months without workers. No software company can last 6 months without workers. No fast food company lasts 6 months without workers. No train, bus or airplane company lasts 6 months without workers.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Small ones that you don't hear about. Locals with less than 200 members wind up striking much longer because they're less threatening. The longest strike in US history was 11 years. Strikes can last longer than you might think. The company just hires scabs. A couple years ago, 200 miners were on strike for 1029 days under the United Steelworkers.

[–] Heratiki@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Playing devil’s advocate but what would be the point in working if you got paid similarly by just striking? A worker’s strike is a gamble and always has been. In this instance the workers do not have the upper hand because demand for domestic made vehicles has plummeted and automation is nearly capable of replacing the workers.

Another thing I don’t understand is this isn’t unemployment. This is chosen by the worker and the union and so it’s not unemployment but refusal to work.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I understand that. But a strike isn't them being forced to stop working by their employer. It isn't like being laid off. They chose to stop working when the alternative is to work and get paid.

You don't get employment insurance when you voluntarily quit a job.

If they want a bigger strike pay, they need to either contribute more or join a bigger union that has the financial means to support them thanks to higher number of participants.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure UAW is the best paying strike pay in the US. It's also the 6th biggest union. The point is that the company has a much bigger advantage for surviving a strike than workers do. Getting unemployment would help level the playing field.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

UAW fucked over the UC graduate students.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How? UC isn't paying their students, sure, but that's not the UAW's fault.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

UAW is applying zero pressure to UC after they misappropriated money to spread anti-union propaganda, retaliated against the students at UCSD by having them arrested, and violated our bylaws at basically every point in this process.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

That's true though. It used to be that a general strike would have a big impact on an industry, but with the wealth that the companies have accumulated in past decades, it's not even enough to strike anymore.

The real answer to this would be a universal basic income for everybody. If you're either fired, laid off, on strike or voluntarily quit, you should still receive a sufficient form of income.

People sometimes quit for good reasons like toxic environnements or for health reasons or because they need to take care of someone. They shouldn't be penalized.

[–] I_Comment_On_EVERYTHING@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago

That's what Teamsters does. No idea what's going on here.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The fund ran out of money. What a fucking mess. How can a state simultaneously have the richest companies in the world and not be able to fund basic social support systems?

[–] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

But it's the good state

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How is this world news? Doesn't America have enough news communities?

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Murica is the world, duh

[–] Haus@kbin.social 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If only workers paid into the unemployment fund every paycheck, then there'd be no argument for keeping their money from them. Oh, wait... we do.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Unemployment is funded by a tax on employers, not employees.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's not how tax incidence works. A tax is applied to the transaction, and its burden depends on who has more bargaining power, not on who writes the check.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's called FUTA. Look it up. Also, there's likely a state equivalent wherever you reside.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I think that the argument is that if an employer can afford to pay a worker $30,000 per year and the unemployment tax is $3,000 per year then the employee gets $27,000 per year. So the employee effectively paid that tax, not the employer, even though the employer is the one who sent the money and the employer is the one who is liable for the money.

They just pass the burden onto the employee. They have to because that’s just how it works. Just like the customers pay for a restaurant’s rent in the form of an increase in prices to cover the cost.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 1 points 2 years ago

There is no act that changes how tax incidence works.

[–] Heratiki@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

This is 100% correct. Sadly it’s not as transparent as it should be and quite a lot of corporations have ways of getting around it. Not to mention during COVID there was a lot of taking from the fund but nearly no returning.

[–] SaltySalamander@kbin.social -3 points 2 years ago

No, you don't, lol. Your employer does.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Gavin Newsom vetoing a bill Saturday that had been inspired by high-profile work stoppages in Hollywood and the hotel industry.

That’s because the fund ran out of money and had to borrow from the federal government during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered most businesses to close and caused a massive spike in unemployment.

Labor unions had argued that the amount of workers on strike for more than two weeks is so small it would not have had a significant impact on the state’s unemployment trust fund.

Of the 56 strikes in California over the past decade, only two lasted longer than two weeks, according to Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino, the author of the bill.

“This veto tips the scales further in favor of corporations and CEOs and punishes workers who exercise their fundamental right to strike,” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.

The legislation was an attempt by Democratic state lawmakers to support Southern California hotel workers and Hollywood actors and writers who have been on strike for much of this year.

The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] HububBub@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm rabidly pro-union but I'm OK with this. The union should provide.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Employers should be forced to pay striking workers anyways. Fuck em. Burn the whole system to the ground, it’s exploitative and abusive and it has extracted untold wealth from the working class for centuries.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thats the third most idiotic thing ive ever heard

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago

Are you a millionaire? If not, why are you defending people who are? They’re actively exploiting you, making big bucks off of your hard work, and you’re calling me an idiot?