So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[WinterBorn]

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

lol. you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: 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.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

lol. you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: 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.

I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.

That is ridiculous. There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?

 

[WinterBorn]

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.

His quitting did not reduce costs. It raised costs. Hiring costs money and time for the employer.

And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.

He knew the rules. His failure to follow them cost his new employer money. No one forced him to ignore safety rules. He did that on his own. He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.

 

[danielpalos]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

lol. you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: 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.

I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.

it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.

That is ridiculous. There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.

for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. under Capitalism, only Capital has to circulate not labor. solving for simple poverty means a more efficient positive multiplier effect for our economy. your "for-cause criteria are irrelevant and have no standing in our at-will employment State."

 

[danielpalos]

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.

His quitting did not reduce costs. It raised costs. Hiring costs money and time for the employer.

And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.

He knew the rules. His failure to follow them cost his new employer money. No one forced him to ignore safety rules. He did that on his own. He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.

He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

lol. you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: 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.

I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.

it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.

No. When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.

One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck. There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.

No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state. There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.

His quitting did not reduce costs. It raised costs. Hiring costs money and time for the employer.

And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.

He knew the rules. His failure to follow them cost his new employer money. No one forced him to ignore safety rules. He did that on his own. He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.

He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."

He could have quit anytime. He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.

Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"? What inequality would have caused that?

 

[WinterBorn]

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

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.

No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination. But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences. Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. All of those are perfectly reasonable. Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason. But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. under Capitalism, only Capital has to circulate not labor. solving for simple poverty means a more efficient positive multiplier effect for our economy. your "for-cause criteria are irrelevant and have no standing in our at-will employment State."

Let's see. I have named several.

1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.

All of those have good standing in our at-will employment states.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.

That is ridiculous. There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.

for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.

There is no for-cause employment. But there is for-cause termination. And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.

Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices? That would be a rather grave inequality.

 

[danielpalos]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

lol. you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: 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.

I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.

it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.

No. When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.

One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck. There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.

No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state. There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.

That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State. Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

The courts have decided that. There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama. The employee refused to follow established safety protocols. He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause. When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference. The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident. The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up. Wellborn lost the lawsuit.

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.

His quitting did not reduce costs. It raised costs. Hiring costs money and time for the employer.

And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.

He knew the rules. His failure to follow them cost his new employer money. No one forced him to ignore safety rules. He did that on his own. He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.

He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."

He could have quit anytime. He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.

Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"? What inequality would have caused that?

He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.