Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Faun]

Well that too would be you. For example, we're talking about unemployment benefits for people who quit their job and you tried making it about eminent domain at one point.

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

 

[Juicin]

It's fake

Real number is 25% unemployment

Source: Trump

 

[danielpalos]

Your incompetence on this topic in no way reflects any state of mind, on my part.

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

 

[danielpalos]

It's fake

Real number is 25% unemployment

Source: Trump

I prefer "wikileaks".

 

[Faun]

No, your own posts reflect that. Case in point, you claimed UIC § 1256 "conflicts" with LAB § 2292 -- yet you prove to be incapable of pointing out any conflict.

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, it is merely Your legal incompetence that prevents you from clearly understanding, that the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Only the right wing, never gets it; too much legal, cognitive dissonance?

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

 

[Faun]

So describe the conflict. You keep claiming it's there, but your inability to say precisely what it is exposes there really is no such conflict.

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

 

[danielpalos]

here it is, grasshopper:

the entire UIC statute, is an element of for-cause employment, not at-will employment.

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

 

[Faun]

Great, so now you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance.

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you know, that "perceived legal incompetence in political venues", can be annoying.

There is Only "one dictionary definition of employment at will".

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

Says State Labor Code; there is Only one definition for employment relationships regarding employment at will.

 

[Faun]

And it doesn't describe unemployment insurance. It's you who is conflating the two. I've asked you repeatedly to say why, and even you can't say.

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

Says State Labor Code; there is Only one definition for employment relationships regarding employment at will.

And again, you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance. All because you can't actually show the conflict your delusions lead you to believe is there.

 

[danielpalos]

UIC cannot "create for-cause criteria or conditions" to that employment relationship without attainder of that legal concept and infringing our civil liberty.

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

Says State Labor Code; there is Only one definition for employment relationships regarding employment at will.

And again, you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance. All because you can't actually show the conflict your delusions lead you to believe is there.

dude; it has to be based on the employment relationship established by the employer and the employee; EDD cannot simply "make up their own relationship."

 

[Faun]

Says who?

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

Says State Labor Code; there is Only one definition for employment relationships regarding employment at will.

And again, you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance. All because you can't actually show the conflict your delusions lead you to believe is there.

dude; it has to be based on the employment relationship established by the employer and the employee; EDD cannot simply "make up their own relationship."

As such, they also get to establish the requirements for paying out unemployment insurance, which is to those who lose their job to no fault of their own.

 

[danielpalos]

Just right wing, "hate on the poor to help the rich get richer faster"?

I'm not rightwing. So you misfire again.

And even the rightwing doesn't say what you claimed.

So again I ask ... says who?

If you can't say, it means your hallucinations are speaking for you again.

Says State Labor Code; there is Only one definition for employment relationships regarding employment at will.

And again, you're conflating employment with unemployment insurance. All because you can't actually show the conflict your delusions lead you to believe is there.

dude; it has to be based on the employment relationship established by the employer and the employee; EDD cannot simply "make up their own relationship."

As such, they also get to establish the requirements for paying out unemployment insurance, which is to those who lose their job to no fault of their own.

On what basis does EDD claim for-cause employment criteria in an at-will employment State? We need an Order to Show Cause.

 

[postman]

Trump needs 4% or better GDP growth for his budget to work.

His first quarter was 0.7%

be patient, its coming

Trumps final numbers 6.8% unemployment.

Measured from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020, real GDP decreased 2.5 percent during the period

(making fun of predictions from old threads)

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trumps final numbers 6.8% unemployment.

Measured from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020, real GDP decreased 2.5 percent during the period

(making fun of predictions from old threads)

/—-/ That was the governors final numbers. They shut down the economy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/—-/ That was the governors final numbers. They shut down the economy.

Just following the advice of Trump's CDC.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

That is a bad jobs report? The only reason Unemployment is going down is the same since 2009........people give up looking. No longer counted. Ran out of any benefits 26 weeks? 99 weeks? whatever. off the books.

Hmm you know what's funny I remember people saying unemployment rates were artificially low during Trump's presidency too due to people just stopped looking. At least with the Democrats they tend to support people having the duration of unemployment benefits last longer, Republicans want to shorten unemployment benefits.

 

[Edgetho]

Hmm you know what's funny I remember people saying unemployment rates were artificially low during Trump's presidency too due to people just stopped looking. At least with the Democrats they tend to support people having the duration of unemployment benefits last longer, Republicans want to shorten unemployment benefits.

Our unemployment here in Florida is notoriously bad. Really bad. I think it's still stuck at $275 a week.

That's mostly because, in Florida, anybody that WANTS to work CAN work.

You see..... We have a Republican Governor not a scumbag piece of fucking shit dimocrap.

People don't move here for the climate because, frankly, the climate sucks. Bigly. I hate it. People move here to get away from thieving dimocrap FILTH. simple

Think the national economy is overall peachy, dimocraps? Riddle me this -- Why is Gold, right now, $2,013 an ounce when back when President of The United States of America, Donald J Trump was in Office 5 years ago today, it was $1,213 an ounce?

You don't know, do you? You don't have a clue, do you?

dimocraps are painfully stupid human beings, suitable only for the most menial of tasks

 

[Cellblock2429]

Just following the advice of Trump's CDC.

/----/ "Just following the advice of Trump's CDC."
Perhaps the Red States did, but the Blue States went draconian and dragged it out -- and you know it. Trump wanted to end it early.

March 2020​

But by the end of the month, Trump talked about reopening the U.S. and having “packed churches all over our country” for Easter.

https://www.huffpost.com › entry › cuomo-trump-states-reopening-coronavirus_n_5e95ace8c5b636ad1077d86c

Cuomo Threatens Lawsuit If Trump Orders States To Reopen Too Early​

Marina Fang Apr 14, 2020, 10:43 AM EDT | Updated Apr 14, 2020 New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Tuesday threatened to sue Donald Trump if the president orders states to lift their stay-at-home orders too early and rushes to reopen the