Current Events > Newsom vetoes bill, SAG strikers won't get unemployment benefits

(+) Yeah! (+)

You mean they cant collect the thing many have spent years paying into?

pnut027 posted...

You mean they cant collect the thing many have spent years paying into?

I think the issue is that, in most states, you're not eligible for unemployment during a strike. This would have codified it into California law, making it something new. New York and New Jersey have it, but I'm not sure if anybody else does.

I don't think he should have vetoed it, but I get why he did it, given the economic struggles they're currently facing. I assume he's worried about how it'd look to incur even more debt.

Still, I think he should have signed it.

Do WGA or SAG pay into UI? If so then they're entitled to it. Since this is even in contention, I imagine this means they don't.

StealThisSheen posted...

I think the issue is that, in most states, you're not eligible for unemployment during a strike. This would have codified it into California law, making it something new. New York and New Jersey have it, but I'm not sure if anybody else does.

I don't think he should have vetoed it, but I get why he did it, given the economic struggles they're currently facing. I assume he's worried about how it'd look to incur even more debt.

Still, I think he should have signed it.

Are they incurring debt by paying out a fraction of what has been paid into already?

Link_of_time posted...

Do WGA or SAG pay into UI? If so then they're entitled to it. Since this is even in contention, I imagine this means they don't.

By law, pretty much everyone does.

pnut027 posted...

Are they incurring debt by paying out a fraction of what has been paid into already?

California's UI fund is something like $18 billion in debt, and this would have increased it to $20 billion, I believe. I'll be honest, I have no idea how any of that works, it's just what I read.

EDIT: Er, billion, not million.

why are SAG people exempt from public unemployment?

Naysaspace posted...

why are SAG people exempt from public unemployment?

They're not, but striking doesn't make you eligible to collect unemployment, in most states, since it's technically not "losing your job through no fault of your own." This would have added it as a thing, in California.

Naysaspace posted...

why are SAG people exempt from public unemployment?

Because they are refusing to work which is not covered by UI laws as they are written.

StealThisSheen posted...

California's UI fund is something like $18 billion in debt, and this would have increased it to $20 billion, I believe. I'll be honest, I have no idea how any of that works, it's just what I read.

EDIT: Er, billion, not million.

Theyve probably been using it to fund other shit.

Strike pay is what union dues are for

StealThisSheen posted...

They're not, but striking doesn't make you eligible to collect unemployment, in most states, since it's technically not "losing your job through no fault of your own." This would have added it as a thing, in California.

Tenlaar posted...

Because they are refusing to work which is not covered by UI laws as they are written.

This. The whole idea was fucking ludicrous and I'm glad he vetoed it.

It would have been a good thing. Employers can no longer "wait for them to starve out" like the original plan was.

It would have given us power. As we are brainwashed to think this is bad, of course we are all glad the forced-upon-us-by-the-fake-game Newsom would veto this. Is there a reason we are already giving up on the idea of a true progressive liberating us as the next candidate after Biden?

Don't the respective unions pay wages to members that strike from the contributions of their union dues? Why would they also need to double dip into UI?

Newsom is a fucking clown and it's annoying seeing him pushed so hard for 2028.

Vetoed opening safe consumption drug sites, vetoed declaring parential denial of critical gender affirming care to children as child abuse, and now vetoing a measure that would've given workers leverage in ending these strikes on favorable terms. Any sort of controversial initiative not unanimously supported by liberal Democrats and he wusses out.

Fair, next.

Inohira posted...

Newsom is a fucking clown and it's annoying seeing him pushed so hard for 2028.

Vetoed opening safe consumption drug sites, vetoed declaring parential denial of critical gender affirming care to children as child abuse, and now vetoing a measure that would've given workers leverage in ending these strikes on favorable terms. Any sort of controversial initiative not unanimously supported by liberal Democrats and he wusses out.

I'm not as annoyed that he's getting pushed because the DNC is all about safe picks nowadays. I'm more annoyed at how everyone online is already basically saying he's a good candidate we should just accept. It's not even close to 2028 yet, let's at least try to campaign for a true progressive before we begrudgingly accept whoever the DNC tells us we should like.

This dude probably won't be a terrible president, but I'd like to think mediocre is not the benchmark we should be striving for.

Inohira posted...

Newsom is a fucking clown and it's annoying seeing him pushed so hard for 2028.

Vetoed opening safe consumption drug sites, vetoed declaring parential denial of critical gender affirming care to children as child abuse, and now vetoing a measure that would've given workers leverage in ending these strikes on favorable terms. Any sort of controversial initiative not unanimously supported by liberal Democrats and he wusses out.

Yep. He has proven time and time again to not have a spine when it comes to making hard decisions to help the working class and marginalized people.

$20 for fast food workers is good and all, but striking a blow to organized labor is not acceptable.

They're not unemployed, you shouldn't collect until you are.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Don't the respective unions pay wages to members that strike from the contributions of their union dues? Why would they also need to double dip into UI?

Because they can, or at least thought they could.

008Zulu posted...

They're not unemployed, you shouldn't collect until you are.

Might as well be. The AI thing alone jeopardized thousands of writer jobs.

People's livelihoods were on the chopping block before the strike happened.

willythemailboy posted...

Because they can, or at least thought they could.

No, they shouldn't. If they're already getting paid through the strike then they shouldn't also get UI on top of it, especially since they're not even unemployed in the first place.

Tough decisions like this are what prove newsome has what it takes to be the next president

Seriously though I'd like to see mortgage/rent forbearance for strikers, rather than UI. Seeing as how the first thing the executive assholes said was like "let's wait for them to lose their houses"

they're already getting strike pay from their union, why should they be allowed to double dip

they're also not unemployed (yet)

I see why he did but I don't agree. Especially since other states have it.

Given how long they have been out is the big thing here. Other states like ny and nj don't have strikes that last this long. But I think the investment into the worker would eventually counter that balance by supporting them now and them be in a stronger position to pay taxes with increased wages later.

I thought unions paid striking workers. That that was part of why they paid union fees..?

rags_alt posted...

I thought unions paid striking workers. That that was part of why they paid union fees..?

i though this too... the union is pocketing all the dues and not paying out.

willythemailboy posted...

Because they can, or at least thought they could.

Except they're not unemployed though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's illegal to terminate the employment of striking employees, isn't it?

rags_alt posted...

I thought unions paid striking workers. That that was part of why they paid union fees..?

Also this. It's not great pay, but it should be enough to get by.

kingdrake2 posted...

i though this too... the union is pocketing all the dues and not paying out.

That wouldn't shock me. Realistically the only difference between most of the national unions and corporations is the unions say they care about their members. The UAW is a pretty good example of that. Before their own PR got its ass in gear I remember seeing an article about the John Deere strike that pointed out it was a local initiative and the strikers were pissed at the union as much as they were their employer. A lot of remarks about them sending them a shit contract to vote on, and the upper levels of the UAW being more interested in gladhanding in DC than actually helping the workers.

I wish I'd saved that article too, because once the UAW got its PR going it got really hard to find and there was a lot out there about "the union fighting for workers".

Crazyman93 posted...

Except they're not unemployed though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's illegal to terminate the employment of striking employees, isn't it?

I should have put a sarcasm tag on that post. It's a sense of entitlement cranked to 11.

I thought that the studios and strikers had reached an agreement already?

Tom_Joad posted...

I thought that the studios and strikers had reached an agreement already?

That was the writers' union, not the actors

kingdrake2 posted...

i though this too... the union is pocketing all the dues and not paying out.

There a source for this?

Anyone who thinks you can just voluntarily stop working to strike and also collect unemployment must be a fucking idiot.

You guys are not understanding the point of getting UI to pay striking workersits not double dipping, and most unions DO already pay stipends to striking workers (WGA and SAG are technically guilds, not unions, so Im not 100% sure how their strike fund works). This would just allow the unions strike fund to stretch further. UI usually covers something like 70% of your previous wages for a certain period, usually six months. If the striking workers can qualify for that, then the union doesnt need to pay as much to keep its members afloat. This means the cash reserves set aside for strike funds will last much longer, and gives the union more leverage in negotiating a new contract.

This whole actually, unions are just as bad as the companies schtick is fucking bonkers.

Why is their UI $18 billion in debt?

Seems reasonable since they're not working by choice.

If this came across his desk last year or the year before, perhaps he signs it, it was just bad timing. Plus it looks like it was targeted too, specifically at Hollywood, which I'm personally not a fan of the government doing, see desantis and Disney. Targeted legislation attacking companies or in this case hurting a companies negotiating tactics.

Maybe I'm wrong and they've been trying to pass this for years, idk but I just don't like the timing personally. After the strike is over, maybe revisit it.

As for Newsom, guy has done an insane job. For one california has passed almost all of the nation's biggest environmental bills, clean energy, leveraging companies to change their company paths with green energy needs, and so on. Plus he's also helped sustain and bolster one of the globes largest economies, and his state has some of the biggest social safety nets, if not the biggest in the country, despite having the largest population by far.

What Gavin has been able to do in California a very large and diverse state, catering to corporations and citizens should be commended. He's walking the fine line to success. Is he perfect, not at all, but he's easily the best governor in the country and most equipped for dealing with multiple demographics making sure few get left behind or feel undeserved.

If you can govern california, you should be able to govern the nation accordingly.

ClayGuida posted...

Targeted legislation attacking companies or in this case hurting a companies negotiating tactics.

Their tactics in this case amount to starving people out.

At a surface level I don't think vetoing this is necessarily a bad thing. It's pretty much indirectly using public EI funds to fund strikes, which comes across as kind of...odd?

Curious if the House and Senate will vote to override him considering the votes in favour of it at both levels.

teep_ posted...

Strike pay is what union dues are for

This. It's why strikes are a last resort and why union dues accrue the way they do.

AloneIBreak posted...

Why is their UI $18 billion in debt?

Rich people moving out of CA.

Good.

A_Good_Boy posted...

There a source for this?

it may or may not be true as there is no source to prove it...

I agree with Newsom. They struck of their own accord, and not the result of a layoff or loss of job. They don't get unemployment from this.

willythemailboy posted...

I should have put a sarcasm tag on that post. It's a sense of entitlement cranked to 11.

That's fair, and overall, I blame COVID for this. A lot of people were getting benefits for not being able to work without losing their jobs because states were taking unprecedented measures for an unprecedented situation. But now people seem to think the state should always bail them out.

lilORANG posted...

Seems reasonable since they're not working by choice.

Except that's not true. A strike is an agreed upon stopping of work among the workers. They all chose to leave and go on the picket line. If you really want to get down to it, every single one of those people not working because of the strike has a choice to scab.