Strikers should not get unemployment benefits

I read with interest the article regarding the possibility of offering unemployment benefits to striking workers [Feb.

21, Connecticut section, Page 1, “Should strikers get jobless benefits?”].

First, I am pleased that two representatives who are so diametrically opposed on an issue can still be cordial, even friendly. This is a fine example of how political discourse should be executed.

Second, I think it is a mistake to consider such a bill. Labor unions traditionally bear the financial responsibility of work actions, such as a strike, by providing “strikers’ pay.” This is what union dues are for … not just for lobbying in Congress or filling the pockets of union leadership. While it’s true that this pay is not the workers’ full salary, neither is unemployment.

No one likes to lose money, and the threat of a prolonged strike is what often brings, and keeps, both sides at the bargaining table. Asking companies to provide unemployment insurance to its workers who, by their voice and vote, have decided not to work, is counterintuitive, and only permits the union to prolong such an action as well as hold or spend money elsewhere that should be used to protect and serve its rank and file.

I feel that allowing union labor to collect unemployment would also lower the criteria that union leadership uses to determine if a strike is in the best interests of the union or its members, would reduce the incentive to negotiate in good faith, and would open the door to a multitude of frivolous job actions, taking the time and resources of business, and the courts.

Alfred Fichman, Bloomfield