(The Center Square) – Members of the House passed a controversial bill that would support workers who opt to go on strike with unemployment benefits.
The bill’s supporters highlighted union members at the front lines between self-interested business leaders and the interests of everyday workers, while opposition envisioned strikers taking advantage of the benefit and driving business away.
Rep. Rick Krajewski, D-Philadelphia, recalled the major influence striking workers had on progress in both working conditions and political struggles.
“In this political moment, we are faced again with a crisis brought upon us by the unfettered greed of corporate interests,” said Krajewski. “Our basic government functions have been dismantled by oligarchs, and workers rights are being infringed upon in workplaces across America.”
Others worried that state assistance for strikes would not help to resolve wealth inequality, rather it would drive business out of the state.
“Prevailing wage and collective bargaining is only beneficial when those jobs exist,” said Rep. Robert Leadbeter, R-Catawissa. “If those jobs do not exist, then no rate, no privilege, no right is beneficial to those workers if the employment opportunities are not present or offered to them.”
Discussion of the bill hit close to home with members from both sides recounting stories of their own upbringing in union households.
Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler, D-Philadelphia, spoke of her parents relying on community to put food on the table and find child care while spending long hours picketing.
“Going on strike is not the same thing as quitting your job,” said Fiedler. “The decision to strike is not made lightly.”
Rep. Mike Jones, R-York, contrasted her comments with stories about his father, who he said, “would never ever ever cross a picket line” working additional jobs including mowing lawns and installing swimming pools in order to pay bills while strikes were underway. He also noted that union members pay dues in order to protect themselves financially when they strike.
Some representatives were skeptical of laborers’ work ethic and intentions.
“Who wouldn’t strike if you could get paid not to work?” asked Charity Grimm Krupa, R-Smithfield, who called the idea a “taxpayer funded vacation.”
Labor and Industry Committee Chair Jason Dawkins, D-Philadelphia, strongly condemned the implication.
“There’s this notion that somehow American workers are American lazy and don’t want to work,” said Dawkins. “The idea that American workers would choose to stay home or abuse a benefit when they have not abused the benefits in the past is absolutely ludicrous.”
The legislation garnered votes from the Democratic majority along with a handful of Republican legislators, passing with a 106-97 majority.
The bill was similar to one vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom due to the high cost it would incur in the Golden State. Unemployment funds in Pennsylvania come from payments made by employers “on the backs of their employees,” said Rep. Emily Kinkead, D-Bellevue.
Alignment with the left-wing California governor was nevertheless a point Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-Ellwood City, was eager to make clear.
“For the first time ever, I would think, the majority of the Republican caucus is going to side with Gavin Newsom,” said Bernstine.
