What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

This is one fantasy he has never, ever, let go of, no matter what. If you can even loosen his grip on it a little, you've accomplished a lot.

Daniel used to, regularly, talk about how only suckers worked for a living. At least he has stopped that nonsense. But he won't give up on this fantasy about unemployment compensation being for anyone who doesn't have a job. He isn't looking for a job. He doesn't want a job. But he wants a check.

Equal protection of the law, what a non-black code concept. Show us where there is any requirement to look for work, at Law, in any at-will employment State. Remember, the same State administers benefits regarding the established at-will employment laws.

 

[Papageorgio]

You have been told over and over and over, reasoned with over and over and over, and you don’t want to accept whatever anyone else says, you don’t want a discussion, you want agreement with your idea, even the congressman knew it wouldn’t fly and he told you you’d have to pay him to present the bill. You have nothing, no bill, court case, nothing but fallacy.

All you needed the whole time was valid arguments for rebuttal.

I have valid arguments, just because you don’t accept them, doesn’t make them less valid. If you arguments are valid, take them to court or to a congressman and then have them pass the law. That your California assemblyman won’t sponsor it in the state of California, where nonsense thrives, it seems your arguments have failed.

My arguments are more valid than Yours, why don't You accept my arguments which resort to fewer fallacies than those presented by the right wing?

So in your opinion, your arguments are more valid than mine, great and your opinion has been dissed by a congressman and a court system and all those on the left and right on this board as well. Your experiment was tried in a few countries and it failed, so in reality, you have fallacy.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show us where Cause is required:

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.

Now, are you refering to federal or state law because in states they can differ in wording.

 

[Papageorgio]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

Again, all you have is an opinion that didn't work in a couple countries. You have an idea that even your congressman believes is not valid and full of fallacy. Your opinion and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks. All you do is talk and you can't seem to take action yourself or get anyone to take action for your idea. Your argument is to redefine words and phrases, those aren't arguments, only soothsayers try that.

 

[danielpalos]

You have been told over and over and over, reasoned with over and over and over, and you don’t want to accept whatever anyone else says, you don’t want a discussion, you want agreement with your idea, even the congressman knew it wouldn’t fly and he told you you’d have to pay him to present the bill. You have nothing, no bill, court case, nothing but fallacy.

All you needed the whole time was valid arguments for rebuttal.

I have valid arguments, just because you don’t accept them, doesn’t make them less valid. If you arguments are valid, take them to court or to a congressman and then have them pass the law. That your California assemblyman won’t sponsor it in the state of California, where nonsense thrives, it seems your arguments have failed.

My arguments are more valid than Yours, why don't You accept my arguments which resort to fewer fallacies than those presented by the right wing?

So in your opinion, your arguments are more valid than mine, great and your opinion has been dissed by a congressman and a court system and all those on the left and right on this board as well. Your experiment was tried in a few countries and it failed, so in reality, you have fallacy.

lol. You seem to think your opinions are more valid than with nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments. Just you making stuff up and claiming it must be the "gospel Truth" is also a fallacy. You need Valid arguments that show I am wrong instead of Right even though I am on the left. Appealing to the majority is also usually considered a fallacy especially if it includes right wingers typing on the Internet.

And, equal protection of the laws is not an experiment but a right under our Constitutional form of Government.

Tell how equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation would not work and I will tell how it will.

How will unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States be Bad and not Good for our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show us where Cause is required:

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.

Now, are you referring to federal or state law because in states they can differ in wording.

They both claim the same thing.

You still have nothing but fallacy so let's get more practical and tell me how and why equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation would be Bad and not Good for our economy. Consider that unemployment compensation is an acknowledged Automatic stabilizer (of capitalism's natural boom and bust cycles).

How would You be worse off as an individual in our market based economy through equal protection of the law and being able to quit on an at-will basis and still collect unemployment compensation?

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

Again, all you have is an opinion that didn't work in a couple countries. You have an idea that even your congressman believes is not valid and full of fallacy. Your opinion and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks. All you do is talk and you can't seem to take action yourself or get anyone to take action for your idea. Your argument is to redefine words and phrases, those aren't arguments, only soothsayers try that.

All I have is the law which is clear on the topic.

Tell me how anyone being able to quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good.

 

[Papageorgio]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

Again, all you have is an opinion that didn't work in a couple countries. You have an idea that even your congressman believes is not valid and full of fallacy. Your opinion and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks. All you do is talk and you can't seem to take action yourself or get anyone to take action for your idea. Your argument is to redefine words and phrases, those aren't arguments, only soothsayers try that.

All I have is the law which is clear on the topic.

Tell me how anyone being able to quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good.

You don't have law, otherwise the court system would have corrected itself and your congressman would not need to pass a bill because it is already law. You have nothing but wishful thinking.
We always have been able to quit an at will job., it works well. It isn't bad, it is already good.

 

[WinterBorn]

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

There is only one law that governs employment relationships.

Absolutely wrong. You can quit anytime. You can be fired anytime.

But there is a special program for those who lose their job through no fault of their own. And that is as it should be.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show us where Cause is required:

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 are trying to make at-will employment laws the same as the requirements for unemployment compensation. They are two different things.

 

[WinterBorn]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

I have done that. You ignore any arguments that do not support your fantasy. I have posted links to support my arguments and you still ignore them.

 

[WinterBorn]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

This is one fantasy he has never, ever, let go of, no matter what. If you can even loosen his grip on it a little, you've accomplished a lot.

Daniel used to, regularly, talk about how only suckers worked for a living. At least he has stopped that nonsense. But he won't give up on this fantasy about unemployment compensation being for anyone who doesn't have a job. He isn't looking for a job. He doesn't want a job. But he wants a check.

Equal protection of the law, what a non-black code concept. Show us where there is any requirement to look for work, at Law, in any at-will employment State. Remember, the same State administers benefits regarding the established at-will employment laws.

I did not say there was a requirement to look for work.

Show us a law that requires you be paid, from the tax coffers, for doing nothing?

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

Again, all you have is an opinion that didn't work in a couple countries. You have an idea that even your congressman believes is not valid and full of fallacy. Your opinion and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks. All you do is talk and you can't seem to take action yourself or get anyone to take action for your idea. Your argument is to redefine words and phrases, those aren't arguments, only soothsayers try that.

All I have is the law which is clear on the topic.

Tell me how anyone being able to quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good.

You don't have law, otherwise the court system would have corrected itself and your congressman would not need to pass a bill because it is already law. You have nothing but wishful thinking.
We always have been able to quit an at will job., it works well. It isn't bad, it is already good.

Tell me how anyone being able to quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and collect unemployment compensation would be Bad and not Good.

 

[danielpalos]

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

There is only one law that governs employment relationships.

Absolutely wrong. You can quit anytime. You can be fired anytime.

But there is a special program for those who lose their job through no fault of their own. And that is as it should be.

It is not a special program. It is not means tested and merely flouts the equal protection of our State and federal Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show us where Cause is required:

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 are trying to make at-will employment laws the same as the requirements for unemployment compensation. They are two different things.

Not two different things at all since they rely on the default employment relation but are applied unequally for Labor as the least wealthy in our republic. There is only one law that describes an employment relationship in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

I have done that. You ignore any arguments that do not support your fantasy. I have posted links to support my arguments and you still ignore them.

All you have is stories, right winger. I have posted more arguments with fewer fallacies and y'all still ignore them. See how easy that is.

Tell me how unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in an at-will basis would be Bad and not Good for our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

I did not say there was a requirement to look for work.

Show us a law that requires you be paid, from the tax coffers, for doing nothing?

If there is no requirement to look for work, how is that an Agency of a State can deny or disparage unemployment benefits for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

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.

 

[hadit]

There is no legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

Yes, there is a quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It is not my imagination at all. Remember, it is right wingers typing on the Internet.

It IS your imagination. No one other than you is saying otherwise. There is no more legal barrier to quitting your job than there is a barrier to taking a MW job if you are already collecting welfare. There may be incentive to go one way or the other, but there is no barrier. Is there a barrier to paying full price for something at one store if there is a sale on the same item at another store, or are you free to choose to purchase where you like? Is there a barrier to choosing a doctor because the one you really want is out of your insurance network, or are you free to choose to pay more for the one you really want? No, there is NO "quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States". It's all in your imagination because no one other than you is saying that.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show where cause is a requirement in an-will employment State for any benefits administered by a State:

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 will be glad to. There is no requirement because there doesn't have to be. They are independent of UC. I showed you this before, and I'll show it again:

You quit your job in an at will employment state:

1. You are allowed to collect UC. Have you violated the at will doctrine? No, because you were allowed to quit.
2. You are NOT allowed to collect UC. Have you violated the at will doctrine? No, because you were allowed to quit.

Remember, at will just means you can quit. You've admitted this. Whether you can collect UC or not doesn't violate that at all, because in neither case are you prevented from quitting your job. Do you see that? At will doesn't mean UC law is required to or prevented from applying qualifications, quasi-legal or otherwise. Look, I know this is one of your deepest held fantasies and one you've never let go of despite being shown repeatedly that it's just a fantasy, but that's irrelevant. There is nothing illegal about UC having qualifications.

 

[hadit]

No, because there is no legal barrier to quitting your job if you want.

Since you acknowledge that there is no legal barrier to being faithful to our at-will employment laws; how can there be a legal barrier to collecting benefits for being faithful the actual law that establishes employment relationships in our at-will employment States?

There can be because qualifications do not infringe on the at will doctrine. I've shown you this repeatedly, it's not my problem that you either refuse to acknowledge it or are too dense to get it.

 

[hadit]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

This is one fantasy he has never, ever, let go of, no matter what. If you can even loosen his grip on it a little, you've accomplished a lot.

Daniel used to, regularly, talk about how only suckers worked for a living. At least he has stopped that nonsense. But he won't give up on this fantasy about unemployment compensation being for anyone who doesn't have a job. He isn't looking for a job. He doesn't want a job. But he wants a check.

Equal protection of the law, what a non-black code concept. Show us where there is any requirement to look for work, at Law, in any at-will employment State. Remember, the same State administers benefits regarding the established at-will employment laws.

There is no requirement unless you want to qualify for benefits. You are always free to not work. What you are NOT free to, however, is the money others have earned.