18 replies to this topic

[freedom78]

Taking away a social service, to someone who willingly abandons their job, is cruel and unusual punishment. Is this what we have come to as a country folks? Where not giving people entitlements when they refuse to work, is on the same page as torture. YES HULA YOU FIGURED IT OUT! That is what the founders meant when they wrote that. That people who quit their jobs should be given lots of free shit. I'm shocked the SC never ruled on that before.



All lighthearted manner of course.

While I have no major problem with this single particular law, when you put it in the broader context of corporate bailouts, little to no accountability for those who ran our economy down the shitter while floating away in a golden parachute, wealth disparity, workers' rights, or the general decline of the middle class and increasing concentration of wealth at the top, then THAT'S when I have a problem with it. This law isn't coming out of a desire to fix our entitlements. It's coming out of the right's hate and disgust for workers...especially those who've managed to claw a tiny chunk of power away from those at the top. They simply can't fucking stand it.

[Hula]

the other side of that coin...you think a "worker" should work in an unsafe work area or be paid a substandard wage and just put up with it? is it the workers fault that they work for a shit who could care less? should a worker just have to suck it up? people don't strike because they want to. I am not talking about people who just up and quit a job for no reason, striking workers have legit complaints and or don't want to give up their gain. which is the line in the sand the owner doesn't want to cross either for his bottom line...only difference in the end is the fat cat owner can afford to feed himself and his family, the worker can't

[Jill]

Hula and Randall, I think you've missed the gist here.

This legislation does NOT take away food stamps if someone strikes.

It prohibits people from SIGNING UP FOR food stamps if they strike.

Here's my outline again:

1.) You have a Union job, but your family is currently eligible for, and receiving food stamps.

• Your union goes on strike
• Your family continues to receive food stamps at the level previously eligible for, but not more due to the decreased family income.

2.) You have a Union job and your family is not currently eligible for, nor receiving food stamps.

• Your union goes on strike
• You cannot apply for food stamps due to your family's decreased income, since said decreased income is viewed as "voluntary".

Basically, they're making the eligibility requirements similar to unemployment benefits. You can't collect unemployment compensation if you quit your job. This bill says you can't make a NEW APPLICATION for food stamp benefits if you voluntarily "leave" your job by striking. But if your family is already receiving food stamps, you will continue to receive them at the same level.

[Jill]

While I have no major problem with this single particular law, when you put it in the broader context of corporate bailouts, little to no accountability for those who ran our economy down the shitter while floating away in a golden parachute, wealth disparity, workers' rights, or the general decline of the middle class and increasing concentration of wealth at the top, then THAT'S when I have a problem with it. This law isn't coming out of a desire to fix our entitlements. It's coming out of the right's hate and disgust for workers...especially those who've managed to claw a tiny chunk of power away from those at the top. They simply can't fucking stand it.

Now this I agree with 100%. Extremely well-said!