Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
anything more than your appeal to emotion; or, should we take this to the thread where the right wing, blames the left wing, for having nothing but emotion instead of reason?You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.You always have a choice whether you want to work or not. Society also has a choice, and has decided to not pay you if you can work, but choose not to do so. Your agreement with that choice is unnecessary.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
It is a simple, conflict of laws.
LIAR!!!
anything more than your appeal to emotion; or, should we take this to the thread where the right wing, blames the left wing, for having nothing but emotion instead of reason?You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
It is a simple, conflict of laws.
LIAR!!!
anything more than your appeal to emotion
Yes, your fact free claims are emotional.
If you ever post the text of the 2 laws you claim are in conflict,
I'll be happy to highlight your error.
UIC 1256.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.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.
Still trying to show off your red herring? It is Yours; you run with it. I am not going down an irrelevant path. I have an argument.I am not lying about anything; it is Your red herring. How is it relevant.It is your red herring, right winger; run with it. I am not claiming anything since it is irrelevant to My argument.Then why did you claim he did it more than once? The market forces made Ford double the wages, the same would hold true today.
So it is irrelevant yet you saw a need to lie about it. Lol!
Market forces caused Ford to double the wages. He did it to keep the turnover rate lower. He made a business decision, just as today's businesses do. He didn't need a federal government or a union to dictate the wages. The market dictated the wages.
And, Henry Ford identified an inefficiency and corrected it; by having a plan, Stan.
You lied, you claimed that Ford doubled his wages more than once, you out and out lied. No you are lying about not lying! Lol! You are a ridiculous, dishonest person, I have no respect for you or your dishonesty.
Then why did you bring up the lie that Henry Ford doubled his wages more than once? You lead out a red herring to calling it a red herring when caught lying? Interesting but stupid debate tactic. So are you now claiming Ford is irrelevant after you brought him up?California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument. You have nothing but red herrings. See the difference.California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.
California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.
California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
You post the text since you have such a good argument
You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.
An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.
Or run away.....again. LOL!
You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.
Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.
Ford identified an inefficiency and resolved it with an efficiency wage.Still trying to show off your red herring? It is Yours; you run with it. I am not going down an irrelevant path. I have an argument.I am not lying about anything; it is Your red herring. How is it relevant.It is your red herring, right winger; run with it. I am not claiming anything since it is irrelevant to My argument.
So it is irrelevant yet you saw a need to lie about it. Lol!
Market forces caused Ford to double the wages. He did it to keep the turnover rate lower. He made a business decision, just as today's businesses do. He didn't need a federal government or a union to dictate the wages. The market dictated the wages.
And, Henry Ford identified an inefficiency and corrected it; by having a plan, Stan.
You lied, you claimed that Ford doubled his wages more than once, you out and out lied. No you are lying about not lying! Lol! You are a ridiculous, dishonest person, I have no respect for you or your dishonesty.
Why did you bring up the red herring? I have no clue as to what your argument is or isn't. Ford needed lots of help and a lower turnover rate. He raised the wage because of it, no other reason. Today the restaurant industry would rather invest in machines to control labor cost and not untrained labor.
You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.You always have a choice whether you want to work or not. Society also has a choice, and has decided to not pay you if you can work, but choose not to do so. Your agreement with that choice is unnecessary.It depends on the sector.It's easier to get hired in right to work states, because unions are unable to dictate who the companies can and cannot hire. You might want to think about that before you go off the paved road again.
In any case, not everyone is prepared to labor for an income at any given time. Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, also solves simple poverty.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
That is You. How is it relevant to my position that Henry Ford did not complain about doubling autoworker wages, not minimum worker wages, anytime.Then why did you bring up the lie that Henry Ford doubled his wages more than once? You lead out a red herring to calling it a red herring when caught lying? Interesting but stupid debate tactic. So are you now claiming Ford is irrelevant after you brought him up?California is an at-will employment State. That is my argument. You have nothing but red herrings. See the difference.California is an at-will employment State. It really is, that legally simple.You post the text since you have such a good argument
You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.
An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.
Or run away.....again. LOL!
You will never get the dishonest lefty to admit he lied or post he was wrong. Admitting he is wrong is not in his DNA, most lefties can't admit it, they just try to change the subject just as Danny boi does. Typical regressive; dishonest, intolerant and slimy.
Lol! You still don't deliver, pretty funny! You can't be honest to save yourself. Tricks, dishonesty and word games, that is all you have. No integrity, no honesty, absolutely a pure joke of a poster.
Ford identified an inefficiency and resolved it with an efficiency wage.Still trying to show off your red herring? It is Yours; you run with it. I am not going down an irrelevant path. I have an argument.I am not lying about anything; it is Your red herring. How is it relevant.So it is irrelevant yet you saw a need to lie about it. Lol!
Market forces caused Ford to double the wages. He did it to keep the turnover rate lower. He made a business decision, just as today's businesses do. He didn't need a federal government or a union to dictate the wages. The market dictated the wages.
And, Henry Ford identified an inefficiency and corrected it; by having a plan, Stan.
You lied, you claimed that Ford doubled his wages more than once, you out and out lied. No you are lying about not lying! Lol! You are a ridiculous, dishonest person, I have no respect for you or your dishonesty.
Why did you bring up the red herring? I have no clue as to what your argument is or isn't. Ford needed lots of help and a lower turnover rate. He raised the wage because of it, no other reason. Today the restaurant industry would rather invest in machines to control labor cost and not untrained labor.
Post the text of the laws that is in conflict. Not just one law. You said LAWS were in conflict. Post them.You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.You always have a choice whether you want to work or not. Society also has a choice, and has decided to not pay you if you can work, but choose not to do so. Your agreement with that choice is unnecessary.It depends on the sector.It's easier to get hired in right to work states, because unions are unable to dictate who the companies can and cannot hire. You might want to think about that before you go off the paved road again.
In any case, not everyone is prepared to labor for an income at any given time. Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, also solves simple poverty.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
Wow, are you warped, comparing slavery to society refusing to pay you when you choose not to work.so what. slavery was legal once as well; the right wing is merely clueless and Causeless, that is all.You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.You always have a choice whether you want to work or not. Society also has a choice, and has decided to not pay you if you can work, but choose not to do so. Your agreement with that choice is unnecessary.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
Good luck with that because so far no state allows what you claim is a legal right and I am willing to bet that any court in any state would shoot your silly logic down, because it is not logical.
anything more than your appeal to emotion; or, should we take this to the thread where the right wing, blames the left wing, for having nothing but emotion instead of reason?You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
It is a simple, conflict of laws.
LIAR!!!
anything more than your appeal to emotion
Yes, your fact free claims are emotional.
If you ever post the text of the 2 laws you claim are in conflict,
I'll be happy to highlight your error.UIC 1256.It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.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.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
And there you go.All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
Any for-Cause conditions require for-Cause employment.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.
so what. slavery was legal once as well; the right wing is merely clueless and Causeless, that is all.You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.You can't resort to the subjective value of morals on this one.You always have a choice whether you want to work or not. Society also has a choice, and has decided to not pay you if you can work, but choose not to do so. Your agreement with that choice is unnecessary.
We have laws. It is about being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
The law is, employment is at the will of either party, in at-will employment States. Any Thing that denies and disparages that, is mere coercion due to a lack of capital standing under our form of Capitalism.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
Good luck with that because so far no state allows what you claim is a legal right and I am willing to bet that any court in any state would shoot your silly logic down, because it is not logical.
And there you go.All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
Any for-Cause conditions require for-Cause employment.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.
Until you post the text of the laws you have repeatedly claimed are in conflict, you're just...derpity derp derp derp.
I really think he's on autopilot, incapable of action requiring deeper thought than that required to reiterate one of a half dozen meaningless statements. I don't know if it's because of continual drug use or if it's deliberate.And there you go.All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
Any for-Cause conditions require for-Cause employment.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.
Until you post the text of the laws you have repeatedly claimed are in conflict, you're just...derpity derp derp derp.
He has had his ass handed to him so many times in this thread that if he had any thinking capability at all he would have realized it by now. Too bad for him, he has no thinking ability, just dishonesty and lies.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.And there you go.All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
Any for-Cause conditions require for-Cause employment.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.
Until you post the text of the laws you have repeatedly claimed are in conflict, you're just...derpity derp derp derp.
Are you being deliberately dense, or can you not help yourself? Post the text of the laws you have repeatedly claimed are in conflict. Until you do, you're just...derpity derp derp derp.EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.And there you go.All y'all have is fallacy, not any form of valid rebuttal.We did and you ignored it. Here's a prediction. Despite being thoroughly spanked yet again on these points, you will resume spouting them as if they mean anything.Nothing but cluelessness and Causelessnes from the right wing?
If y'all had an argument, you would have posted it by now.
Any for-Cause conditions require for-Cause employment.
EDD must prove for-Cause employment to deny and disparage unemployment compensation on a basis that conforms to employment at will.
Until you post the text of the laws you have repeatedly claimed are in conflict, you're just...derpity derp derp derp.
Why is that not the current case, under our current regime?
Another nonsense reply. He's not saying it is.slavery is no longer legal, dear.so what. slavery was legal once as well; the right wing is merely clueless and Causeless, that is all.You have nothing but legal fantasy.Dude, GIVE IT UP. You've been thoroughly spanked on this. The law is clear, you can work and get paid, you can, under a defined set of circumstances, be severed from a job and get paid a portion of your salary, or you can choose not to work at all and not get paid at all.
Those are your options, and your endlessly repeating the same mantra over and over does absolutely nothing to change anything. We have equal protection under the law (everyone who chooses not to work does not get paid). We have at will employment (either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason, and unions can't force a company to deny you employment). Yet you continue yammering nonsense, no matter how many times the rod of correction is applied to your seat of learning.
It is a simple, conflict of laws. Employment is declared at-will in any at-will employment State.
Any Code conflicting the Public Interest of employment at will, must be declared null and void, from Inception.
Good luck with that because so far no state allows what you claim is a legal right and I am willing to bet that any court in any state would shoot your silly logic down, because it is not logical.
Like I said, good luck with that, that is all.
