State legislative leaders joined a large group of striking workers from Trump Taj Mahal Casino at the State House today. They're fighting for the right to collect unemployment benefits after being on strike for 30 days. That's part of a piece of legislation (I might call it a piece of something else) that's working it's way through Trenton. You can read the actual bill here.

This came up a few months ago when Verizon workers were on strike. Is this really the system we want to have? Note in the legislation if a worker goes out on strike due to reasons of the company violating provisions of a labor contract, they can collect unemployment. That's not the part I take issue with. My problem is with where it goes on to say that even when the company has honored everything in the contract, workers who are simply fighting for more can leave their jobs in a strike and start collecting unemployment in 30 days. Of course I believe you have every right to demand a raise. You have every right to look for a new job if you aren't satisfied. You also have every right to go on strike and fight for a better life. But should you also have the right to have it both ways? Striking, in a sense, is a form of quitting your job, and here they're expecting to also collect unemployment?

Yes employees 'pay in' to it. But if that's your argument, employers also 'pay in' to it, so you're forcing a system where your employer is setting up a strike fund for you. In a blue state like Jersey I'm pretty sure how this vote will turn out, but I'm curious to know if you think this would be a fair system. Please take our poll and let us know.

-Jeff Deminski