When people go on strike they almost always have an honest reason to take the path that they are taking, To not pay them is sort of unfair when all they want is what they deserve, but yet we pay people who sit around all day not even trying to find a job, whom when their benefits are up go get a job for a short time till they get them again. So yes i believe we should give unemployment to people on strike, or make a whole new program for people who are on strike for fair pay or benefits.
Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits when work available. If you have been laid-off and no work is available, then you can strike and collect unemployment benefits. But, if you are refusing other work to strike, you cannot collect unemployment benefits. The laws covering this area are complex and there are exceptions that involve employers breaking other laws.
1. Most states do not allow unionized striking worker to collect unemployment benefits. Some state laws do allow striking employees, who are members of a union, to collect unemployment insurance if the strike is caused by an employer's violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement, or the employer locked out employees. However, on the whole, going on strike forfeits the employee's ability to receive unemployment.
So, if there is no work available because you were laid off, you can strike all you want and collect unemployment insurance, as long as you are not refusing any jobs that are available.
It is like saying you can protest instead of working all your life. Some people have lost their jobs to hard times while they should be thankful that their companies aren't moving to china or mexico. So if somebody loses their job and has to have their home foreclosed while they are begging for more money.
This issue has been brought to light as of recent state legislature in some western states (Colorado maybe?) where proposed bills advocate for giving unemployment benefits to labor workers on strike.
This doesn't make sense in my head. Most of the time, workers are striking for better wages or better conditions. Nowadays, conditions are usually met with high standards, and they usually aren't a problem. Sometimes the hours worked could cause a problem - but why should the government pay them?
The wages issue only makes this even more irrational. They're striking for better wages, so it's their choice to go on strike. They shouldn't be paid money by the state for going on strike to get better wages.