Forum Thread

Go on strike...lose food stamps for your whole family

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 13 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So, H.R. 1135 is a new bill proposed by a group of Republicans that, among other things, changes the relationship between receiving food stamps and going on strike. I wasn't aware that the two were related. Apparently, they are.

    Now, they propose that if any one member of a household goes on strike, for any reason, the entire household is no longer eligible for food stamp money.

    ThinkProgress.com reported the story and "The ED Show" of MSNBC did a follow up. Here's the article and the link to the actual bill:

    Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes

    Text of H.R. 1135: Welfare Reform Act of 2011

    I'm not necessarily for defending welfare. I think it more as a case by case basis. But, I don't see the fair correlation between the two in question. Does this sound fair to you?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is real? You're serious?

    How 'bout we take away all tax benefits from Congress until unemployment falls?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was going to reply on this as another example of how Republicans are working to take away collective bargaining.  Then I read the update to the article and found that the words written into the proposed law are actually an exact carry over from a 1981 Ronald Reagan union busting law. That provision of the law was challenged in the courts and ultimately made it's way to the Supreme Court seven years later in 1988.  And surprise...the Supreme Court in 1988 "upheld the constitutionality of the 1981 amendment to the Food Stamp Act that prohibits strikers from receiving the aid."

    "The majority finding reversed a lower court ruling in the case, which was initiated by the Auto Workers and the United Mine Workers unions."

    The ghosts of Ronald Reagan's union busting days live on...
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So the working poor can't strike for better wages....but criminal corporations continue to receive the full benefits of the nanny-state?
    What kind of society is that? What kind of society forms staircases out of the backs of the working poor for the wealthy to ascend higher and higher? I tell you what kind of society that is....it's a society ready to topple. It's a society that takes from its CORE...to build on its periphery. This kind of structural cannibalism cannot go on forever. As Gorbachev told his wife Raisa in their garden, "We can't go on living like this."


    No surrender.
    Kaboom

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree with you. But the question is, why are so many people seemingly going along with and/or actively helping their oppressors? How has the Far right gotten the middle classes and poor to vote against their own best interests?

    You know, The United States has never had a real Fascist State before, could we be seeing the birth of one?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Okay...I thought unions were taking dues among other things to support their members when they go on strike? I set myself up for a period of time to be self sufficient if I am going to be without a job. Should I as a taxpayer be responsible to give somebody else food while they voluntarily give up their full income and take a stipend from a union to shut down a business while on strike??? 

    If I were rich and owned a business, first, I would have dialog with my employees, but more importantly, I would make the decisions about my business. If I had a union come in and try to strong arm my people to join or me to pay out stupid amounts of money, I would just shut down. I am not so greedy as to want to gouge the public and I would think my employees would want that as well. I would pay a decent salary to employees as long as the company is able to make the income to sustain that. Most CEOs need to be gone and many unions, especially in public sector employees need to be the same way!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Remember, the law proposed here is that if any household member goes on strike....the entire household loses food stamp benefits. 
    Secondly,.......if there's a strike....and the business shuts down.....meaning no way for union members to cross a picket line (strike + lockout)....how fair is to punish union members who don't support the strike.....are they simply guilty by (previous) association?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is kinda of funny.....I read a couple of Frank H's posts....thinking it was Frank (K) and that he was losing it. No disrespect to Frank H's views intended with these comments.  It just seemed completely out of place for Frank (K) to make those sort of comments and I figured something was up.  People generally don't do political 180s without some sort of trauma in their lives.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    this is in reply to el prezidnete

    you make a comparison of "guilt by association"....you may not want to strike, but if there is one then you lose...

    the same goes for union dues...over 90% of all union dues goes to democratic politicians... you can not say over 90% of all union workers are democratic...what about those republican union members who have to see their union dues go to democratic politicians...

    Now what about union dues...isn't  that suppose to help support the union members during hard times...it seems all the monies go to the higher ups...isn't there a history of Union Bosses going to jail for corrupt policies....some even say Hoffa is buried in an end zone...

    I am sorry but if you walk away from a good paying job to strike,  then i don't want to see my tax money being used for food stamps for you...you refuse to work then you should lose all benefits...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well...paul T.,

    I guess, then, you are against the law as proposed, because it goes further than just affecting those striking but all the members of their households.

    Secondly, in closed shop states and strike + lockout scenarios....individuals may not have the option of working instead of striking.

    This is a vague law....that punishes whole families for the "wrongdoing" of family members.
    It is certainly not "conservative" in its reach or intent.
    There's nothing small about a government that backs the interests of big business over the needs of the working poor.

    In my opinion, a "good" paying job ought to leave an individual ineligible for food stamps.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't know how the repubs and the right get so many people to vote against their own interests; ignorance? fear? both? It's very sad and scary
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Sigh another righty (Independent) who says I got mine so screw you. Yes I know you said you would try to pay a fair wage; unions are useful to protect workers and workers have a right to strike

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Another "Independent" (right leaning) who is albout me me me; my taxes blah blah. so tired of hearing this same old line