• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They could choose to be scabs, so I don’t see how it’s not a choice for the workers.

    I still think they should get unemployment benefits, or some other type of payment, but you don’t have to be part of a strike. You don’t even have to be part of a union to strike, as you are asserting.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being a scab is against the rules of nearly every union. And California law requires all employees of unionized workplaces to be members of the union. Would be pretty unfair for the state to deny unemployment because you could break the bylaws of the union that the state required you to join.

      Strikes are a legally recognized thing. There’s no way the state would provide unemployment to illegal strikes.