The next question I have goes back to when unemployment insurance was first set up. It seems to me it was supposed to be a program that would do two things. One, it would make sure that workers who lost their jobs had some income while they looked for another job. It would save workers from having to go bankrupt, which would cost the whole system.
On the other hand, it was set up so companies wouldn't find themselves in court over issues with employees when workers lost their jobs. That fund would be there to help the company move those employees on, or even keep them around until the economy got better and they could hire them back again.
There was a benefit to both when unemployment insurance was set up.
You're asking simply that we continue in that spirit, particularly for the worker. You're asking that some bridge be provided from the end of the period of a strike when the company doesn't hire workers back, or the company dissolves, so the workers can keep going until they get their next job or the company gets back into business and can hire people back.
Is that correct?