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

[WinterBorn]

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.

First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work. They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working? A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working? What makes you so special?

You keep refusing to answer this question.

you seem incapable of understanding the economic rational. it is about solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can do that.

 

[danielpalos]

it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.

It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.

this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

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.

Sure it can. Basically anything can be challenged. But if you do, you will not win.

Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules. Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.

enforce the law, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

n 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.

They do enforce it. There is equal protection under the law. If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money. If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.

employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.

No, you did not.

Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
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.

And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.

employment is at the will of either party. only a Court can impose punishment.

Absolutely wrong.

If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them. You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State. for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.

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

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

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

First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it. You don't get money for luxuries unless you work. The decision is yours.

you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working? What makes you so special?

You keep refusing to answer this question.

you seem incapable of understanding the economic rational. it is about solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can do that.

The natural rate of unemployment, as I have explained before, only counts those seeking work. You are not. You are seeking long term financial charity for luxuries. Nothing more and nothing less.

Why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working? What makes you so special?

 

[danielpalos]

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

First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work. They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working? A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

lol. we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you did not.

Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
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.

And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.

employment is at the will of either party. only a Court can impose punishment.

Absolutely wrong.

If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them. You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State. for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.

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

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.

Yes, it is equal protection under the law. And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it. You don't get money for luxuries unless you work. The decision is yours.

you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.

Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work. They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working? A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

lol. we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.

this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

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.

Sure it can. Basically anything can be challenged. But if you do, you will not win.

Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules. Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.

enforce the law, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

n 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.

They do enforce it. There is equal protection under the law. If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money. If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.

employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.

I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. only a Court can impose punishment.

Absolutely wrong.

If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them. You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State. for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.

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

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.

Yes, it is equal protection under the law. And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.

so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it. You don't get money for luxuries unless you work. The decision is yours.

you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.

Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.

you make up your own stories, story teller. we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.

 

[danielpalos]

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work. They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working? A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

lol. we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

whatever can you mean, story teller. Aesop told much better stories.

 

[danielpalos]

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.

this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

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.

Sure it can. Basically anything can be challenged. But if you do, you will not win.

Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules. Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.

enforce the law, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

n 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.

They do enforce it. There is equal protection under the law. If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money. If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.

employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.

I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.

the Law is the Law. be legal to the Law, right wingers. fix that moral example for the rest.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolutely wrong.

If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them. You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State. for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.

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

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.

Yes, it is equal protection under the law. And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.

so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.

Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it. You don't get money for luxuries unless you work. The decision is yours.

you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.

Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.

you make up your own stories, story teller. we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.

Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.

Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolute nonsense. People work because they want to earn a living. Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?

Employment is a the Will of Either party. Persons should work because they want to.

This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work. They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working? A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

lol. we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?

whatever can you mean, story teller. Aesop told much better stories.

You know what I mean. Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?

 

[danielpalos]

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State. for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.

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

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.

Yes, it is equal protection under the law. And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.

so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.

Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.

The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal. I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to. It could be collected at point of sale.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure it can. Basically anything can be challenged. But if you do, you will not win.

Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules. Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.

enforce the law, right wingers. don't be illegal to State law:

n 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.

They do enforce it. There is equal protection under the law. If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money. If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.

employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.

I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.

the Law is the Law. be legal to the Law, right wingers. fix that moral example for the rest.

No, the law states that an employer CAN, in fact, fire you for cause. You just don't like it and want the law changed. It won't happen.