• zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Haus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    "he said he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.

    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