Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Faun]

Like I pointed out earlier, you're too fucking crazy.

No, you cannot quit your job and collect unemployment benefits...

Meeting Eligibility Requirements

An individual must meet all unemployment insurance (UI) eligibility requirements in order to receive benefit payments. Eligibility requirements must be met when a UI claim is filed and whenever a certification is submitted before benefits can be paid by the Employment Development Department (EDD).

Filing a UI Claim

An individual who files for UI benefits must meet specific eligibility requirements before benefits can be paid. Individuals must:

• Have received enough wages during the base period to establish a claim.*

• Be totally or partially unemployed.

• Be unemployed through no fault of his/her own.

• Be physically able to work.

• Be available for work.

• Be ready and willing to immediately accept work.

• Be actively looking for work.

• Be approved for training before training benefits can be paid.

So is that what this who unhinged logorrhea was about?? Your misunderstanding of unemployment benefits??

We have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Don't complain, right wingers; be lawful to federal law.

What you described exists nowhere except in your head.

Why should anyone take you seriously about the law?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

 

[danielpalos]

We have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Don't complain, right wingers; be lawful to federal law.

What you described exists nowhere except in your head.

Why should anyone take you seriously about the law?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have no problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

 

[Faun]

What you described exists nowhere except in your head.

Why should anyone take you seriously about the law?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

 

[danielpalos]

Why should anyone take you seriously about the law?

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

 

[Faun]

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

 

[danielpalos]

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment, in an at-will employment States.

The habitual incompetence of the right wing, makes this just political, "right wing hate on the poor".

 

[pinqy]

You're truly fucking deranged. No one said an employee can't quit their job. But if they do, they surrender their eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

No we don't. We have Common Law precedent, but that's not a doctrine.

 

[Faun]

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

 

[danielpalos]

Where is that letter of that law, written in a federal doctrine or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

Here is one example from California: Labor Code 2922.

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

No we don't. We have Common Law precedent, but that's not a doctrine.

Not rich enough for your competence, the first time?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

 

[Faun]

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

 

[danielpalos]

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Our labor code cannot conflict with any other code.

Is California an at-will employment State or not?

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

 

[Faun]

It's an at-will state which does not provide unemployment benefits to folks who quit their job without good cause...

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work​

... and you didn't answer my question... now that your delusions about people quitting their job so they can collect unemployment benefits has been shattered, why do you persist?

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

 

[danielpalos]

It should be found unlawful for EDD to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis, without proving for cause employment.

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

Why blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws, right wingers? just standard incompetence for the poor, for free.

 

[pinqy]

I already showed you where California does not pay out unemployment insurance to people who quit their job. Take your Lithium and go to bed. Who knows why you need the exact statute?

Section 1256

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.​

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

No we don't. We have Common Law precedent, but that's not a doctrine.

Not rich enough for your competence, the first time?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Cite it then. With a link.

 

[Faun]

Why should people be paid for voluntarily quitting their job without good cause?

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

Why blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws, right wingers? just standard incompetence for the poor, for free.

Now you're all over the place because your delusions have been exposed for what they are. Now you're ranting about, illegal aliens, eminent domain, equal protection,

If you were sane, you could coherently answer the question, why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, have not problem being infidel, protestant, and renegade to a federal Doctrine and State laws.

Where did the law(s) You cite, originate?

You claim one set of elements; a federal Doctrine and our State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, claims another.

One set of laws always takes precedence in Any conflict of laws.

California labor code at 2922 is California law, by Statute enacted by our elected representatives.

So is 1256.

Your own law clearly states folks who become unemployed by their own fault are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Why do you persist in the face of such damaging evidence to your delusions?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

No we don't. We have Common Law precedent, but that's not a doctrine.

Not rich enough for your competence, the first time?

We also have a federal Doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Cite it then. With a link.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. California is an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Public policy; eminent domain applies in modern times. Capitalists get a capital gains preference to create jobs booms. Capitalist also get to "write off" the cost of labor for tax purposes.

Don't, "hate on the poor" right wingers.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

Why blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws, right wingers? just standard incompetence for the poor, for free.

Now you're all over the place because your delusions have been exposed for what they are. Now you're ranting about, illegal aliens, eminent domain, equal protection,

If you were sane, you could coherently answer the question, why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

Just clueless and Cause less? Employment is at-will.

 

[Faun]

Eminent domain has nothing to do with unemployment insurance. Wait until your Lithium kicks and and try answering my question again if you ever come close to being in a semi-lucid state.

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

Why blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws, right wingers? just standard incompetence for the poor, for free.

Now you're all over the place because your delusions have been exposed for what they are. Now you're ranting about, illegal aliens, eminent domain, equal protection,

If you were sane, you could coherently answer the question, why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

Just clueless and Cause less? Employment is at-will.

Rather than keep repeating a statement no one contended, why not answer the question?

why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

 

[danielpalos]

Just standard incompetence, for free? it is about, equal protection of the law.

You're deranged as there is no intrusion on equal protection in this case. Anyone who quits their job without good reason loses their eligibility for unemployment insurance. The law is applied equally to all.

Why blame less fortunate illegals for being illegal to our own laws, right wingers? just standard incompetence for the poor, for free.

Now you're all over the place because your delusions have been exposed for what they are. Now you're ranting about, illegal aliens, eminent domain, equal protection,

If you were sane, you could coherently answer the question, why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

Just clueless and Cause less? Employment is at-will.

Rather than keep repeating a statement no one contended, why not answer the question?

why should people be entitled to unemployment benefits if they quit their job without good cause?

It is the law.