re: #297 Dark_Falcon

Answer to your bolded portion: The ThinkProgress article itself stated that someone receiving that check prior to striking would not lose it. What this provision simply means is that having gone out on strike, said worker cannot go to the government to get a larger check to replace the wages he is voluntarily forgoing by striking. It does not cut off existing benefits, it just does not subsidize strikes.

Here is what it comes down to Dark.

What if that person was the only wage earner in the family?

What if so long as they’re striking they’re not making money or unemployment.

They’ve got no cash income.

Suppose they’ve got no or very little effective savings.

Suppose the guy has two kids and a wife.

Would you rather the kids and the wife starve/suffer from malnutrition than the striking guy be able to get food stamps now that he’s not making any money?