Here's a question: If a union voluntarily calls a strike and would be available, were it not for the fact that the union strikers walked off their jobs, should those strikers be eligible for food stamps? [Remember, the work is available.]
If you answered 'no' to that question, then you'd probably be in agreement with this:
Rep. Scott (R-SC) Rep. Garrett and Rep. Burton (R-IN) have introduced legislation aimed at stopping individuals and families from getting food through the Food Stamp program if they go on strike.
"(3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9))
In the case of loss of income due to any striking family member, the bill adds that a "family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household."
While every person has the right to refuse to work, others should not have to pay for that person's rejection of work that is available. Oddly, however, as it is with the Left's reaction to most common sense things, if you believe that individuals who purposefully refuse to work due to a union-called strike should not receive tax-payer funded assistance, then you are probably a "union-buster."
[Gosh! That would make you almost as bad as Arianna Huffington...almost.]
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776