It feels like Senate Bill 916 goes too far. Employer-paid money would be used to offer unemployment benefits to striking union workers; typically, these funds are utilized for people who are unemployed against their will. Should striking workers be eligible to receive unemployment benefits? On February 6, sparks fly in Salem.
To support striking employees, unions frequently establish their own strike funds. The idea that our state would use employer-provided monies to shift the scales in labor talks in favor of union workers sounds incredibly ironic and profoundly unfair. Perhaps the state should compensate the employer for any profits lost during a union strike in order to restore equilibrium.
During a strike, normal and customary labor discussions include an immediate risk of financial loss for both parties, which usually results in a prompt settlement. Why should the state tilt the balance in favor of longer strikes that have more favorable results for the union?
Portland’s Gordon King
Visit regonlive.com/opinion to read further letters to the editor.
