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 7 points 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

UAW fucked over the UC graduate students.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

What you claim is your position. Some agree. Others don't.