Unemployment benefits aren't causing a labor shortage. Low wages are. What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid low wage workers more

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.
The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.
He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.
Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.
Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

No one in this thread has a problem being legal to our own laws.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.
The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.
Of course it does. You merely don't understand the concepts or the law.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

It means either the employer or the employee can terminate the relationship at any time.

But you are paid for the work. You are free to quit. But you are not free from the consequences of quitting.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.
 
Last edited:
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.
He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.
Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.
Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.
All it takes is Gold under Capitalism to purchase justice and make some rules.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

No one in this thread has a problem being legal to our own laws.
Right-wingers seem to appeal to ignorance of the laws.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!
Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

No one in this thread has a problem being legal to our own laws.
Right-wingers seem to appeal to ignorance of the laws.

It is you who is appealing to ignorance of the laws.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.
Only if you appeal to ignorance of economics and the law. Not everyone wants to be Poor when all they need do is find an employer who will pay more.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

No one in this thread has a problem being legal to our own laws.
Right-wingers seem to appeal to ignorance of the laws.

It is you who is appealing to ignorance of the laws.
All you have is ignorance of the laws and plain reason.
 
See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....
That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.
Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.
The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.
Of course it does. You merely don't understand the concepts or the law.
As I said, we've been over this. You are the only one who thinks the way you do. Basically, you are saying that the entire legal profession doesn't understand the concepts of the law, but you do. That's not true at all.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.
Ridiculous. It's much more like saying you can buy a gun but can't carry it with you into a shopping mall while a policeman or security guard can. IOW, it's a privilege reserved for those who qualify for it and denied to those who don't. Quitting a job means you don't qualify for UC and never holding a job means you don't qualify for UC, while getting laid off from a job through no fault of your own means you do qualify. That is the plain meaning of the law, and the meaning that the entire legal profession adheres to. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.
He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.
Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.
Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.
All it takes is Gold under Capitalism to purchase justice and make some rules.
Does that mean you got it or not?
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!
Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?
Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.
 
Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.
Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.
That's not what the law says.
What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?
That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.
Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.
Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top