House Bill 1135: Striking workers are ineligible to start receiving food stamps

Ladewig · 24th March 2011, 11:23 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/...n-food-stamps/

Quote:

Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer:

[page 15 line 17]

(3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE.—Not- withstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act

The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”

If we don't prevent them from receiving government benefits while on strike, then they will never learn that striking is wrong.

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 04:15 AM

Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps?

sarge · 25th March 2011, 04:24 AM

Goverments should remain impartial during management/labor negotiations. The playing field has been tilted in favor of organized labor for decades. This is a step in the right direction.

Meadmaker · 25th March 2011, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps?

That was my instant thought as well, but then I realized that it's not so simple. Strikes are voted on. If everyone else is on strike, it's not like you can show up to work. If the factory is closed due to a strike, the individual workers are not choosing not to work. Some of them are just being forced not to work by the majority of the strikers.

Ladewig · 25th March 2011, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps?

Some strikes are called because an employer is not negotiating in good faith. Some strikes are called because of intolerably unsafe working conditions.

short answer: yes.

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Some strikes are called because an employer is not negotiating in good faith. Some strikes are called because of intolerably unsafe working conditions.short answer: yes.

I am wondering if you have some examples of the latter reason. The first reason is probably many times claimed by both sides.

daredelvis · 25th March 2011, 07:01 AM

Striking workers are already ineligible for food stamps. In the GOP's rush to demonize union workers, and do exactly what (?) to create jobs they pull these kinds of stunts.

If a family was eligible for food stamps before a strike, the continue to get the same level of support while on strike (exactly as the language in the bill is set up). Just another heap of pandering poo from the party of misdirection.

Daredelvis

Ladewig · 25th March 2011, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I am wondering if you have some examples of the latter reason. The first reason is probably many times claimed by both sides.

A quick Google search leads to examples such as this one
http://ibew103.mayfirst.org/node/606

Is there a specific reason you are asking?

sarge · 25th March 2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That was my instant thought as well, but then I realized that it's not so simple. Strikes are voted on. If everyone else is on strike, it's not like you can show up to work. If the factory is closed due to a strike, the individual workers are not choosing not to work. Some of them are just being forced not to work by the majority of the strikers.

That's the nature of collective bargaining - individuals choose to be bound by the majority decision. If the union members vote to strike, then union members should not be eligible for unemployment compensation.

There is more logic in favor of providing the Employer with revenue during a strike and the employee's with unemployment compensation during a lock out.

EvilSmurf · 25th March 2011, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps?

You are eligible for food stamps if you quit a job (if I recall correctly).

sarge · 25th March 2011, 08:14 AM

Somehow, I read the OP and substituted "Unemployment Compensation" for "Food Stamps". The two are not equitable, and I retract my previous statements until I've had an opportunity to pull my head out of my arse.

TraneWreck · 25th March 2011, 09:38 AM

Hmm, so if workers are unhappy with their employment conditions (whatever they happen to be), they now need to choose between sucking it up and taking it or feeding their kids.

This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue.

To the former party, this food stamp initiative is common sense. To the latter, it's a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor.

This happens from time to time: forcing black people to the back of the bus seemed very natural and logical to the majority of white Southerners in the 60's and before. To those who viewed equality between the races as a fundamental humanitarian issue, it was a disgusting blight on our society.

I take solice in the notion that as societies progress they move away from the barbarism evinced in such punitive measures against citizens that work for a living.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/...n-food-stamps/

If we don't prevent them from receiving government benefits while on strike, then they will never learn that striking is wrong.

Why should taxpayers subsidize their strike?

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

A quick Google search leads to examples such as this one
http://ibew103.mayfirst.org/node/606

Is there a specific reason you are asking?

I can't find the part where OSHA issued fines for these "intolerably unsafe working conditions", nor that they were even investigating.

Maybe you posted the wrong link?

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why should taxpayers subsidize their strike?

That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic, the next step is to outlaw anyone on food stamps participating in politics. Also, you're missing the part of the law that says "any family member", meaning if a spouse is part of a striking union, it's the rest of the family who's punished. Kids, wife, indigent or sick parent. Whatever. I agree with Tranewreck. This is appalling, but some people see it as common sense.

Ladewig · 25th March 2011, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't find the part where OSHA issued fines for these "intolerably unsafe working conditions", nor that they were even investigating.

Maybe you posted the wrong link?

Is there a specific reason you are asking?

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't find the part where OSHA issued fines for these "intolerably unsafe working conditions", nor that they were even investigating.

Maybe you posted the wrong link?

This was my reason for asking. I think there are other avenues to pursue rectifying intolerably unsafe working conditions than a strike. If I believed that was the reason for a strike then maybe my opinion on this question would be different.

DavidJames · 25th March 2011, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's an odd way to look at it.

Viewing life purely through political glasses is odd, but not uncommon. Here, for example, we know that unions are bad, ergo anything that even smells like support of them is bad.

Skeptics, ya gotta love us - hence my sig.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Is there a specific reason you are asking?

Why wasn't OSHA investigating, if these allegations are true?

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue.

To the former party, this food stamp initiative is common sense. To the latter, it's a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor.

People who think striking workers should not get food stamps want to punish working people and beat them down?

Denying food stamps to people who choose to go on strike is a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor?

sarge · 25th March 2011, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

Hmm, so if workers are unhappy with their employment conditions (whatever they happen to be), they now need to choose between sucking it up and taking it or feeding their kids.

Is that the actual choice they face?

If unionized employee's wish to retain the ability to strike without suffering economic hardship, then they should insist that the union maintain a fund to cover the economic impact of a strike. Union employee's have the collective resources and the collective responsibility to maintain resources adequate to accomplish their collective goals.

Quote:

This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue.

Not desiring to fund striking workers does not amount to a desire to punish striking workers. I can simulatiously sympathize with striking workers while not desiring to underwrite their efforts to bring coercive leverage to bear against their employer.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic,

No, that's not following my logic at all. The striking workers have lowered their income by choice, not by circumstance. Nothing prevents them from looking for a better-paying job instead of going on strike.

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why wasn't OSHA investigating, if these allegations are true?

OSHA is notoriously understaffed.

And even if you do get their attention, their record is terrible in terms of addressing issues of safety.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/11/...od-laws-go-die

Quote:

In a new law review article out this fall, University of Nebraska professor Richard Moberly calculates that in the first three years after Sarbanes-Oxley, only 13 out of 491 employees who filed complaints with OSHA found any sort of relief for their claims of retaliation and other repercussions resulting from blowing the whistle. Only six succeeded on appeal. Moberly concludes that, among other things, OSHA has no idea what it's doing and that—surprise—even if it did, the agency was underfunded and couldn't really handle the workload. The whistleblower provision is one of those great examples of big business touting its commitment to reform by supporting a tough new law while virtually ensuring that it will never actually have to reform anything.

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, that's not following my logic at all. The striking workers have lowered their income by choice, not by circumstance. Nothing prevents them from looking for a better-paying job instead of going on strike.

Looking? Yes. Finding? In this economy? Are you kidding?

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Viewing life purely through political glasses is odd, but not uncommon. Here, for example, we know that unions are bad, ergo anything that even smells like support of them is bad.Skeptics, ya gotta love us - hence my sig.

This is a perfect example of viewing an issue through political glasses. Thinking striking workers should not be entitled to food stamps does not imply a belief that unions are bad.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

OSHA is notoriously understaffed.

And even if you do get their attention, their record is terrible in terms of addressing issues of safety.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/11/...od-laws-go-die

Was there even a complaint to OSHA?

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic, the next step is to outlaw anyone on food stamps participating in politics. Also, you're missing the part of the law that says "any family member", meaning if a spouse is part of a striking union, it's the rest of the family who's punished. Kids, wife, indigent or sick parent. Whatever. I agree with Tranewreck. This is appalling, but some people see it as common sense.

I would say if someone chooses to do volunteer work for anything instead of work they should not qualify for food stamps.

If they are either unable to find work or physically unable to work and choose to devote some time as a volunteer than they should qualify (assuming they meet the other requirments).

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Was there even a complaint to OSHA?

What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions. They are understaffed and ineffective. This is part of what Republicans have been doing for 30 years. They worked to remove "regulation" from the workplace. Without effective regulation, the only option for workers in unsafe factories is to strike or in your words "look for work elsewhere". Now, the GOP is trying to further restrict the workers' ability to address unsafe working conditions or other grievances by punishing people who are working but still on food stamps. You realize that there are people on food stamps who work? But they don't make enough to buy food? And those people won't be able to strike, since they'll lose their food stamps.

So what's left? No OSHA (gutted by Republicans), no strikes (gutted by Republicans). The only options left are to suck it up or find another job. And if the economy got trashed by Republicans gutting the banking regulations and causing a crash so there aren't any jobs to find?

Suck it up. The only option left.

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I would say if someone chooses to do volunteer work for anything instead of work they should not qualify for food stamps.

If they are either unable to find work or physically unable to work and choose to devote some time as a volunteer than they should qualify (assuming they meet the other requirments).

There are a people with jobs (low paying or underemployed) who are on food stamps. So you agree that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics? And Wildcat told me I was stretching on that one.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Looking? Yes. Finding? In this economy? Are you kidding?

The elephant in the room you don't want to adress is that construction job wages and benefits have been driven downward by the million or so illegal workers entering the country every year, many of whom work in the construction industry. Now, you see, compensation is at the point where these once well-paid jobs have become "jobs Americans won't do". Thus the workers in Ladewig's link going on strike partly over low wages.

I beleve the pro-illegal immigration solution is more illegal immigrants, to take the jobs those striking workers don't want. Sure, Americans won't take them for $8/hr but there's plenty of people in developing countries who would love to have them.

Newtons Bit · 25th March 2011, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Was there even a complaint to OSHA?

He's trying to use an article on OSHA not giving whistle-blower protections to people requesting whistle blower protection as some sort of evidence that OSHA isn't responding to complains of job-site safety. Of course, that was the first three years of the whistle blower protection program. The number of responses will likely increase over time.

It is, of course, preposterous.

This is, of course, anecdotal, but every construction job I've worked on has had a least one OSHA inspection. The Project Superintendents I've worked with are all paranoid about OSHA violations to the point where I witnessed one superintendent jump into a 5' deep footing excavation to replace a fallen rebar cap. And of course, this is in a mostly non-union state. The argument that unions are required to maintain safety in todays USA isn't just a stretch. It's a flat out lie.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions.

You haven't even shown that the workers complained to OSHA. Or even the municipal officials this school was being built for, surely they have a Building Dept.?

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The elephant in the room you don't want to adress is that construction job wages and benefits have been driven downward by the million or so illegal workers entering the country every year, many of whom work in the construction industry. Now, you see, compensation is at the point where these once well-paid jobs have become "jobs Americans won't do". Thus the workers in Ladewig's link going on strike partly over low wages.

I beleve the pro-illegal immigration solution is more illegal immigrants, to take the jobs those striking workers don't want. Sure, Americans won't take them for $8/hr but there's plenty of people in developing countries who would love to have them.

Wait, what? Why are you jumping onto this tangent? Ladewig found that link just to show an example. This thread is not about that particular strike. It's about the ability to strike over unsafe conditions or any other grievance. Refusal of bathroom breaks. Unpaid overtime. Abusive treatment. All of these are conditions that exist and aren't addressed by anything except a strike or leaving. So the GOP is pushing to make striking a non-option. I get it. It's not hard to understand.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

This is, of course, anecdotal, but every construction job I've worked on has had a least one OSHA inspection. The Project Superintendents I've worked with are all paranoid about OSHA violations to the point where I witnessed one superintendent jump into a 5' deep footing excavation to replace a fallen rebar cap. And of course, this is in a mostly non-union state. The argument that unions are required to maintain safety in todays USA isn't just a stretch. It's a flat out lie.

Small jobs don't get OSHA inspections. I've never seen one after 25 years in the business.

But this was a new school they were building, I would certainly think OSHA would respond to any complaints about that site.

WildCat · 25th March 2011, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Wait, what? Why are you jumping onto this tangent?

You were bemoaning the lack of better-paying jobs available. I pointed out that in the construction industry illegal workers have had a huge impact on wages. Unionization will not help that problem, look at how ineffective the UFW has been after 50 years of existence.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Ladewig found that link just to show an example.

Ladewig found allegations, there was no evidence at all presented.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

This thread is not about that particular strike. It's about the ability to strike over unsafe conditions or any other grievance. Refusal of bathroom breaks. Unpaid overtime. Abusive treatment. All of these are conditions that exist and aren't addressed by anything except a strike or leaving. So the GOP is pushing to make striking a non-option. I get it. It's not hard to understand.

All those issues can be resoloved without striking, and are in fact illegal if true.

sarge · 25th March 2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions.

What you are saying is that since OSHA is not equiped to do the job OSHA is funded to perform, then tax dollars should be used to underwrite striking workers efforts to do OSHA's job.

That would be irrational and grossly inefficient, even if it were true that OSHA does not meet its obligations.

OSHA climbs up our backside around here every time a disgrunteld worker with an axe to grind files a patently false claim of unsafe workplace conditions. 100% of the time, even in cases where there is clear intent to misrepresent on the part of the filing employee, OSHA responds to the claim.

The answer to the problem you believe exists is to fix OSHA, not subsidize Unions with tax dollars.

Unabogie · 25th March 2011, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by sarge

What you are saying is that since OSHA is not equiped to do the job OSHA is funded to perform, then tax dollars should be used to underwrite striking workers efforts to do OSHA's job.

That would be irrational and grossly inefficient, even if it were true that OSHA does not meet its obligations.

OSHA climbs up our backside around here every time a disgrunteld worker with an axe to grind files a patently false claim of unsafe workplace conditions. 100% of the time, even in cases where there is clear intent to misrepresent on the part of the filing employee, OSHA responds to the claim.

The answer to the problem you believe exists is to fix OSHA, not subsidize Unions with tax dollars.

Your anecdote is not evidence. I provided a study that shows that OSHA is underfunded, at the insistence of Republicans. That the only way left to address these issues is for workers to take matters in their own hands is hardly a reason to punish the workers who are suffering.

And I'd love to fix OSHA. Maybe some of you guys who keep voting GOP could stop so we could restore the funding? The GOPers won't allow it.

Newtons Bit · 25th March 2011, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Small jobs don't get OSHA inspections. I've never seen one after 25 years in the business.

But this was a new school they were building, I would certainly think OSHA would respond to any complaints about that site.

This is true. I think the smallest job I've worked on was greater than $5 million.

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 10:51 AM

Eeyore1954
I would say if someone chooses to do volunteer work for anything instead of work they should not qualify for food stamps.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

There are a people with jobs (low paying or underemployed) who are on food stamps. So you agree that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics? And Wildcat told me I was stretching on that one.

No I am not saying that. I am saying if someone made the decision to not work but instead devote their time as a volunteer they should not qualify.

If someone has a job that is low paying and they qualify they should be entitled to food stamps. Whether or not they spend time volunteering.
People who are trying to find employment and meet the low income requirements should be entitled to food stamps.

TraneWreck · 25th March 2011, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by sarge

Is that the actual choice they face?

Very likely, yes.

Originally Posted by sarge

If unionized employee's wish to retain the ability to strike without suffering economic hardship, then they should insist that the union maintain a fund to cover the economic impact of a strike. Union employee's have the collective resources and the collective responsibility to maintain resources adequate to accomplish their collective goals.

And how would they provide funds for this plan? Every worker increases their dues just in case their employer flips out in 5 years and it becomes necessary to strike?

Once again, it's just a reflection of the nation-wide burden shifting to people who work for a living.

And, by the way, we should be able to feed every citizen of this nation regardless of situation. The fact that we can't is a reflection of our poor priorities, not any sort of necessity.

Originally Posted by sarge

Not desiring to fund striking workers does not amount to a desire to punish striking workers. I can simulatiously sympathize with striking workers while not desiring to underwrite their efforts to bring coercive leverage to bear against their employer.

That's exactly what it does. It's an alteration of the cost/benefit analysis that every worker considering striking must run through. This is a way for management to drastically increase the consequences of opposing their actions.

It's coercive behavior meant to intimidate workers out of striking.

24th March 2011, 11:23 PM	#1
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	House Bill 1135: Striking workers are ineligible to start receiving food stamps http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/...n-food-stamps/ Quote: Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer: [page 15 line 17] (3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE.—Not- withstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.” If we don't prevent them from receiving government benefits while on strike, then they will never learn that striking is wrong.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board. Last edited by Ladewig; 24th March 2011 at 11:29 PM.

25th March 2011, 04:15 AM	#2
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104	Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps?
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104

25th March 2011, 04:24 AM	#3
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,323	Goverments should remain impartial during management/labor negotiations. The playing field has been tilted in favor of organized labor for decades. This is a step in the right direction.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

25th March 2011, 04:36 AM	#4
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps? That was my instant thought as well, but then I realized that it's not so simple. Strikes are voted on. If everyone else is on strike, it's not like you can show up to work. If the factory is closed due to a strike, the individual workers are not choosing not to work. Some of them are just being forced not to work by the majority of the strikers.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

25th March 2011, 06:31 AM	#5
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps? Some strikes are called because an employer is not negotiating in good faith. Some strikes are called because of intolerably unsafe working conditions. short answer: yes.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

25th March 2011, 06:39 AM	#6
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104	Originally Posted by Ladewig Some strikes are called because an employer is not negotiating in good faith. Some strikes are called because of intolerably unsafe working conditions.short answer: yes. I am wondering if you have some examples of the latter reason. The first reason is probably many times claimed by both sides.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104

25th March 2011, 07:01 AM	#7
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,865	Striking workers are already ineligible for food stamps. In the GOP's rush to demonize union workers, and do exactly what (?) to create jobs they pull these kinds of stunts. If a family was eligible for food stamps before a strike, the continue to get the same level of support while on strike (exactly as the language in the bill is set up). Just another heap of pandering poo from the party of misdirection. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

25th March 2011, 08:01 AM	#8
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I am wondering if you have some examples of the latter reason. The first reason is probably many times claimed by both sides. A quick Google search leads to examples such as this one http://ibew103.mayfirst.org/node/606 Is there a specific reason you are asking?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

25th March 2011, 08:09 AM	#9
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,323	Originally Posted by Meadmaker That was my instant thought as well, but then I realized that it's not so simple. Strikes are voted on. If everyone else is on strike, it's not like you can show up to work. If the factory is closed due to a strike, the individual workers are not choosing not to work. Some of them are just being forced not to work by the majority of the strikers. That's the nature of collective bargaining - individuals choose to be bound by the majority decision. If the union members vote to strike, then union members should not be eligible for unemployment compensation. There is more logic in favor of providing the Employer with revenue during a strike and the employee's with unemployment compensation during a lock out.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

25th March 2011, 08:10 AM	#10
EvilSmurf JREF Bowl Pool Champion Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The USA Posts: 1,551	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 Should someone who chooses to not be working be eligible for food stamps? You are eligible for food stamps if you quit a job (if I recall correctly).
	__________________ Ah, Australian animals. If it isn't venomous, carnivorous, or has foot-long claws, it's a tourist.

25th March 2011, 08:14 AM	#11
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,323	Somehow, I read the OP and substituted "Unemployment Compensation" for "Food Stamps". The two are not equitable, and I retract my previous statements until I've had an opportunity to pull my head out of my arse.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

25th March 2011, 09:38 AM	#12
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Hmm, so if workers are unhappy with their employment conditions (whatever they happen to be), they now need to choose between sucking it up and taking it or feeding their kids. This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue. To the former party, this food stamp initiative is common sense. To the latter, it's a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor. This happens from time to time: forcing black people to the back of the bus seemed very natural and logical to the majority of white Southerners in the 60's and before. To those who viewed equality between the races as a fundamental humanitarian issue, it was a disgusting blight on our society. I take solice in the notion that as societies progress they move away from the barbarism evinced in such punitive measures against citizens that work for a living.
	Last edited by TraneWreck; 25th March 2011 at 09:43 AM.

25th March 2011, 09:40 AM	#13
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Ladewig http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/...n-food-stamps/ If we don't prevent them from receiving government benefits while on strike, then they will never learn that striking is wrong. Why should taxpayers subsidize their strike?

25th March 2011, 09:44 AM	#14
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Ladewig A quick Google search leads to examples such as this one http://ibew103.mayfirst.org/node/606 Is there a specific reason you are asking? I can't find the part where OSHA issued fines for these "intolerably unsafe working conditions", nor that they were even investigating. Maybe you posted the wrong link?

25th March 2011, 09:52 AM	#15
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by WildCat Why should taxpayers subsidize their strike? That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic, the next step is to outlaw anyone on food stamps participating in politics. Also, you're missing the part of the law that says "any family member", meaning if a spouse is part of a striking union, it's the rest of the family who's punished. Kids, wife, indigent or sick parent. Whatever. I agree with Tranewreck. This is appalling, but some people see it as common sense.

25th March 2011, 09:57 AM	#16
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by WildCat I can't find the part where OSHA issued fines for these "intolerably unsafe working conditions", nor that they were even investigating. Maybe you posted the wrong link? Is there a specific reason you are asking?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

25th March 2011, 09:59 AM	#18
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,083	Originally Posted by Unabogie That's an odd way to look at it. Viewing life purely through political glasses is odd, but not uncommon. Here, for example, we know that unions are bad, ergo anything that even smells like support of them is bad. Skeptics, ya gotta love us - hence my sig.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

25th March 2011, 10:00 AM	#19
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Ladewig Is there a specific reason you are asking? Why wasn't OSHA investigating, if these allegations are true?

25th March 2011, 10:02 AM	#20
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104	Originally Posted by TraneWreck This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue. To the former party, this food stamp initiative is common sense. To the latter, it's a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor. People who think striking workers should not get food stamps want to punish working people and beat them down? Denying food stamps to people who choose to go on strike is a horrific attempt at breaking organized labor?
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104

25th March 2011, 10:02 AM	#21
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,323	Originally Posted by TraneWreck Hmm, so if workers are unhappy with their employment conditions (whatever they happen to be), they now need to choose between sucking it up and taking it or feeding their kids. Is that the actual choice they face? If unionized employee's wish to retain the ability to strike without suffering economic hardship, then they should insist that the union maintain a fund to cover the economic impact of a strike. Union employee's have the collective resources and the collective responsibility to maintain resources adequate to accomplish their collective goals. Quote: This is yet another reflection of the fundamental divide in this country: some want to punish people who work for a living, beat them down and bring them to heal, some view the historical progression of workers' rights against management as a fundamental humanitarian issue. Not desiring to fund striking workers does not amount to a desire to punish striking workers. I can simulatiously sympathize with striking workers while not desiring to underwrite their efforts to bring coercive leverage to bear against their employer.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

25th March 2011, 10:04 AM	#22
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Unabogie That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic, No, that's not following my logic at all. The striking workers have lowered their income by choice, not by circumstance. Nothing prevents them from looking for a better-paying job instead of going on strike.

25th March 2011, 10:07 AM	#23
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by WildCat Why wasn't OSHA investigating, if these allegations are true? OSHA is notoriously understaffed. And even if you do get their attention, their record is terrible in terms of addressing issues of safety. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/11/...od-laws-go-die Quote: In a new law review article out this fall, University of Nebraska professor Richard Moberly calculates that in the first three years after Sarbanes-Oxley, only 13 out of 491 employees who filed complaints with OSHA found any sort of relief for their claims of retaliation and other repercussions resulting from blowing the whistle. Only six succeeded on appeal. Moberly concludes that, among other things, OSHA has no idea what it's doing and that—surprise—even if it did, the agency was underfunded and couldn't really handle the workload. The whistleblower provision is one of those great examples of big business touting its commitment to reform by supporting a tough new law while virtually ensuring that it will never actually have to reform anything.

25th March 2011, 10:08 AM	#24
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by WildCat No, that's not following my logic at all. The striking workers have lowered their income by choice, not by circumstance. Nothing prevents them from looking for a better-paying job instead of going on strike. Looking? Yes. Finding? In this economy? Are you kidding?

25th March 2011, 10:08 AM	#25
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104	Originally Posted by DavidJames Viewing life purely through political glasses is odd, but not uncommon. Here, for example, we know that unions are bad, ergo anything that even smells like support of them is bad.Skeptics, ya gotta love us - hence my sig. This is a perfect example of viewing an issue through political glasses. Thinking striking workers should not be entitled to food stamps does not imply a belief that unions are bad.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104

25th March 2011, 10:12 AM	#26
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Unabogie OSHA is notoriously understaffed. And even if you do get their attention, their record is terrible in terms of addressing issues of safety. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/11/...od-laws-go-die Was there even a complaint to OSHA?

25th March 2011, 10:14 AM	#27
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104	Originally Posted by Unabogie That's an odd way to look at it. How about a person on food stamps who donates time to the DNC or voter registration? Why should taxpayers subsidize their "politicking"? Following your logic, the next step is to outlaw anyone on food stamps participating in politics. Also, you're missing the part of the law that says "any family member", meaning if a spouse is part of a striking union, it's the rest of the family who's punished. Kids, wife, indigent or sick parent. Whatever. I agree with Tranewreck. This is appalling, but some people see it as common sense. I would say if someone chooses to do volunteer work for anything instead of work they should not qualify for food stamps. If they are either unable to find work or physically unable to work and choose to devote some time as a volunteer than they should qualify (assuming they meet the other requirments).
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,104

25th March 2011, 10:17 AM	#28
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by WildCat Was there even a complaint to OSHA? What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions. They are understaffed and ineffective. This is part of what Republicans have been doing for 30 years. They worked to remove "regulation" from the workplace. Without effective regulation, the only option for workers in unsafe factories is to strike or in your words "look for work elsewhere". Now, the GOP is trying to further restrict the workers' ability to address unsafe working conditions or other grievances by punishing people who are working but still on food stamps. You realize that there are people on food stamps who work? But they don't make enough to buy food? And those people won't be able to strike, since they'll lose their food stamps. So what's left? No OSHA (gutted by Republicans), no strikes (gutted by Republicans). The only options left are to suck it up or find another job. And if the economy got trashed by Republicans gutting the banking regulations and causing a crash so there aren't any jobs to find? Suck it up. The only option left.

25th March 2011, 10:19 AM	#29
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I would say if someone chooses to do volunteer work for anything instead of work they should not qualify for food stamps. If they are either unable to find work or physically unable to work and choose to devote some time as a volunteer than they should qualify (assuming they meet the other requirments). There are a people with jobs (low paying or underemployed) who are on food stamps. So you agree that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics? And Wildcat told me I was stretching on that one.

25th March 2011, 10:21 AM	#30
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Unabogie Looking? Yes. Finding? In this economy? Are you kidding? The elephant in the room you don't want to adress is that construction job wages and benefits have been driven downward by the million or so illegal workers entering the country every year, many of whom work in the construction industry. Now, you see, compensation is at the point where these once well-paid jobs have become "jobs Americans won't do". Thus the workers in Ladewig's link going on strike partly over low wages. I beleve the pro-illegal immigration solution is more illegal immigrants, to take the jobs those striking workers don't want. Sure, Americans won't take them for $8/hr but there's plenty of people in developing countries who would love to have them.

25th March 2011, 10:22 AM	#31
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,879	Originally Posted by WildCat Was there even a complaint to OSHA? He's trying to use an article on OSHA not giving whistle-blower protections to people requesting whistle blower protection as some sort of evidence that OSHA isn't responding to complains of job-site safety. Of course, that was the first three years of the whistle blower protection program. The number of responses will likely increase over time. It is, of course, preposterous. This is, of course, anecdotal, but every construction job I've worked on has had a least one OSHA inspection. The Project Superintendents I've worked with are all paranoid about OSHA violations to the point where I witnessed one superintendent jump into a 5' deep footing excavation to replace a fallen rebar cap. And of course, this is in a mostly non-union state. The argument that unions are required to maintain safety in todays USA isn't just a stretch. It's a flat out lie.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,879	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website. Last edited by Newtons Bit; 25th March 2011 at 10:24 AM.

25th March 2011, 10:23 AM	#32
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Unabogie What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions. You haven't even shown that the workers complained to OSHA. Or even the municipal officials this school was being built for, surely they have a Building Dept.?

25th March 2011, 10:25 AM	#33
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,837	Originally Posted by WildCat The elephant in the room you don't want to adress is that construction job wages and benefits have been driven downward by the million or so illegal workers entering the country every year, many of whom work in the construction industry. Now, you see, compensation is at the point where these once well-paid jobs have become "jobs Americans won't do". Thus the workers in Ladewig's link going on strike partly over low wages. I beleve the pro-illegal immigration solution is more illegal immigrants, to take the jobs those striking workers don't want. Sure, Americans won't take them for $8/hr but there's plenty of people in developing countries who would love to have them. Wait, what? Why are you jumping onto this tangent? Ladewig found that link just to show an example. This thread is not about that particular strike. It's about the ability to strike over unsafe conditions or any other grievance. Refusal of bathroom breaks. Unpaid overtime. Abusive treatment. All of these are conditions that exist and aren't addressed by anything except a strike or leaving. So the GOP is pushing to make striking a non-option. I get it. It's not hard to understand.

25th March 2011, 10:26 AM	#34
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit This is, of course, anecdotal, but every construction job I've worked on has had a least one OSHA inspection. The Project Superintendents I've worked with are all paranoid about OSHA violations to the point where I witnessed one superintendent jump into a 5' deep footing excavation to replace a fallen rebar cap. And of course, this is in a mostly non-union state. The argument that unions are required to maintain safety in todays USA isn't just a stretch. It's a flat out lie. Small jobs don't get OSHA inspections. I've never seen one after 25 years in the business. But this was a new school they were building, I would certainly think OSHA would respond to any complaints about that site.

25th March 2011, 10:30 AM	#35
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,959	Originally Posted by Unabogie Wait, what? Why are you jumping onto this tangent? You were bemoaning the lack of better-paying jobs available. I pointed out that in the construction industry illegal workers have had a huge impact on wages. Unionization will not help that problem, look at how ineffective the UFW has been after 50 years of existence. Originally Posted by Unabogie Ladewig found that link just to show an example. Ladewig found allegations, there was no evidence at all presented. Originally Posted by Unabogie This thread is not about that particular strike. It's about the ability to strike over unsafe conditions or any other grievance. Refusal of bathroom breaks. Unpaid overtime. Abusive treatment. All of these are conditions that exist and aren't addressed by anything except a strike or leaving. So the GOP is pushing to make striking a non-option. I get it. It's not hard to understand. All those issues can be resoloved without striking, and are in fact illegal if true.

25th March 2011, 10:32 AM	#36
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,323	Originally Posted by Unabogie What I'm saying is that OSHA is not equipped to handle cases where workers claim unsafe conditions. What you are saying is that since OSHA is not equiped to do the job OSHA is funded to perform, then tax dollars should be used to underwrite striking workers efforts to do OSHA's job. That would be irrational and grossly inefficient, even if it were true that OSHA does not meet its obligations. OSHA climbs up our backside around here every time a disgrunteld worker with an axe to grind files a patently false claim of unsafe workplace conditions. 100% of the time, even in cases where there is clear intent to misrepresent on the part of the filing employee, OSHA responds to the claim. The answer to the problem you believe exists is to fix OSHA, not subsidize Unions with tax dollars.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?