The joy of not working.

[danielpalos]

They can determine whether a person qualifies for UC, based on whether they lost their job through no fault of their on, or whether they quit or were fired.

There is no legal punishment for quitting or being fired. That does not mean you qualify for the same assistance as someone who did not quit and wasn't fired.

If you quit school you are not entitled to go through the graduation ceremony. That is not inequality. That is a consequence of your own choices.



Besides, unemployment compensation is mostly paid for by the previous employer and is temporary. If there is no previous employer, who pays? And how much help will temporary assistance be if you refuse to work?

Through unequal protection of the laws is unConstitutional.

 

[WinterBorn]

Stereotyping like usual? It is because we have unequal protection of the laws and right-wingers prefer to try to find ways to criminalize poverty.

Stereotyping? LMAO!! I have shown you numerous studies that show I am correct.

 

[WinterBorn]

Through unequal protection of the laws is unConstitutional.

It is not unequal protection under the law. You and your employer both still have the ability to end the relationship at any time, and for any reason.

That is the limit of what "at-will" employment laws do. Anything else is outside the scope of the employment law.

 

[danielpalos]

Stereotyping? LMAO!! I have shown you numerous studies that show I am correct.

No, you haven't. Why did the homeless get on drugs in the first place?

 

[danielpalos]

It is not unequal protection under the law. You and your employer both still have the ability to end the relationship at any time, and for any reason.

That is the limit of what "at-will" employment laws do. Anything else is outside the scope of the employment law.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law like typical, hypocritical right-wingers whining about "illegals" in border threads. Not enough morality to go around?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you haven't. Why did the homeless get on drugs in the first place?

Yes, I have. Shall I go back and find the posts in those threads and show you?

People get addicted to drugs for a variety of reasons. But the way you phrased the question is wrong. You asked why the homeless got on drugs. When it is the drugs that got them living on the streets.

And yes, mental illness and drug addictions do overlap.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law like typical, hypocritical right-wingers whining about "illegals" in border threads. Not enough morality to go around?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is nothing that shows that the at-will employment law applies to anything except the nature of the relationship between employee and employer. Unless you can show any law that extends the employment laws to other areas, you have no standing. And even in at-will employment states, not all jobs are at-will. Many people have contracts that describe their jobs and the reasons/ways they can be fired. Most union jobs, even in at-will states, have provision that say an employee cannot be fired without cause. Are people working under legal contracts and union workers unconstitutional?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I have. Shall I go back and find the posts in those threads and show you?

People get addicted to drugs for a variety of reasons. But the way you phrased the question is wrong. You asked why the homeless got on drugs. When it is the drugs that got them living on the streets.

And yes, mental illness and drug addictions do overlap.

Not for the homeless. You are implying they all had a problem with drugs before they became homeless.

 

[danielpalos]

There is nothing that shows that the at-will employment law applies to anything except the nature of the relationship between employee and employer. Unless you can show any law that extends the employment laws to other areas, you have no standing. And even in at-will employment states, not all jobs are at-will. Many people have contracts that describe their jobs and the reasons/ways they can be fired. Most union jobs, even in at-will states, have provision that say an employee cannot be fired without cause. Are people working under legal contracts and union workers unconstitutional?

And the State. Don't forget the State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not for the homeless. You are implying they all had a problem with drugs before they became homeless.

I am not implying anything. The published studies say substance addiction is one of the biggest causes of homelessness. That and mental health issues.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the State. Don't forget the State.

Do you have anything from the State that shows the employment laws in at-will employment do any more than describe the relationship between employer and employee in most, but not all, situations?

 

[danielpalos]

I am not implying anything. The published studies say substance addiction is one of the biggest causes of homelessness. That and mental health issues.

All you do is make stuff up, Right-Winger. Fantasy is what y'all are best at.

https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf

 

[danielpalos]

Do you have anything from the State that shows the employment laws in at-will employment do any more than describe the relationship between employer and employee in most, but not all, situations?

All you do is prove you are just plain ignorant of the Law for Legal purposes.

Employment is at-will in an at-will employment State for any State administered benefits.

 

[WinterBorn]

All you do is prove you are just plain ignorant of the Law for Legal purposes.

Employment is at-will in an at-will employment State for any State administered benefits.

For any state administered benefits? Where did you find that? Or did you make it up?

 

[danielpalos]

For any state administered benefits? Where did you find that? Or did you make it up?

lol. You merely display your ignorance. Typical of right-wingers. What part did you not understand?

 

[WinterBorn]

lol. You merely display your ignorance. Typical of right-wingers. What part did you not understand?

I understand completely that you just made up what you want to be true.

The at-will employment laws only describe the employer/employee relationship for most workers. It does not cover every facet of labor laws. If it did, an employer could fire anyone injured on the job, and refuse to allow them to use Workers Comp benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand completely that you just made up what you want to be true.

The at-will employment laws only describe the employer/employee relationship for most workers. It does not cover every facet of labor laws. If it did, an employer could fire anyone injured on the job, and refuse to allow them to use Workers Comp benefits.

You understand nothing and simply lie about it, typical of the right-wing.

What do you believe employment at the will of either party means within this context:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[WinterBorn]

You understand nothing and simply lie about it, typical of the right-wing.

What do you believe employment at the will of either party means within this context:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It describes the relationship between employer and employee. Nothing more.

 

[danielpalos]

It describes the relationship between employer and employee. Nothing more.

The State has to abide by that same contractual obligation for Legal purposes according to Constitutional Law. It is why right-wingers are nothing but immoral hypocrites about illegality in border threads.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The State has to abide by that same contractual obligation for Legal purposes according to Constitutional Law. It is why right-wingers are nothing but immoral hypocrites about illegality in border threads.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Most people hired do NOT work under a contract you moron.