Hmm. You might have persuaded me. I'll have to think about it and see.

However, the reason I came out in support of the idea is because our system is already dramatically rigged in favor of employers and I think there would be some justice in tipping the scales at a policy level.

But I'll have to consider your points further before I can weigh things properly.

Could you imagine part of your dues going to "long-term strike insurance?" Whichever financial institution figures that out won't be playing 4D Chess, they'll be wiping their ass on both sides of the board and then telling you that you get the first move.

You read the article?!? This place really isn't like Reddit at all.

Also, one gets the feeling that the public would experience the negative effects of non-stop strike action, entirely paid for by the very taxpayers who would be negatively affected. This would become very, very unpopular. Not only that, but there are FAR less publicly disruptive policies that could achieve the same end goal of giving workers more power. Stronger labor boards with worker-friendly policies, mandatory arbitration, expandied union rights...there are so many other ways to give workers power.

Or am I missing something? I must be missing something. Otherwise, how did it get to the governor's desk in the first place?

yeah, isn't that the point of unions?

Yeah it's literally called a strike fund

Exactly, Unions have strike funds for this very purposes.

No, the point of a strike is to put the hurt that the employees are already feeling on the employers

No one strikes to hurt themselves lol

When you have guaranteed pay you can strike for just about any reason.

Yay! Let's do it then. Employers can stop paying for any reason.

The AP article said it's still not been paid back from the covid shutdowns and when the qualifications and time periods to receive it were expanded.

But I guess it's easier to just make assumptions about California because that's the popular thing to do lately.

THIS is what every headline and comment fails to mention. He did the right thing.

that makes no sense. Taking some risk out of striking makes it harder to dismiss the threat of a strike which increases the incentive businesses have to improve contracts. Its clear that the profits these businesses are making aren't getting back to workers so more threats from unions makes the economy more stable.

What do you mean?

It's already too late for him to do that. Some states are gonna start voting in the primaries in just a few months, and the cutoff date to be on the ballot is coming up fast. I think he's positioning himself for a run in 2028.