Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

You simply misunderstand, like usual. The Point is, if it is legal to quit on an at-will basis it must also be legal to collect unemployment compensation on that same at-will basis. Requiring Cause for unemployment compensation infringes upon the right to collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State.

Only right-wingers prove they have no problem being illegal to the laws as long as the Poor receive no benefit.

Absolute bullshit. There is no connection between being allowed to quit your job and being eligible for unemployment compensation. None.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what. The point is that since you can legally quit on an at-will basis, it is an infringement to require Cause for unemployment compensation in any State where you can legally quit on an at-will basis.

No it is not. Having qualifications to receive assistance is not an infringement.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you believe that? John Henry died trying to keep up with more profitable automation instead of becoming Rich.

LMAO!! Now you are using characters from folk tales as your example? And not even a good one. Surely you are not saying John Henry was lazy?

 

[danielpalos]

Absolute bullshit. There is no connection between being allowed to quit your job and being eligible for unemployment compensation. None.

Of course there is, otherwise legislators would not need to abridge our privileges and immunities with for-cause requirements because at-will employment laws would be better adhered to.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not. Having qualifications to receive assistance is not an infringement.

The only requirements are those for employment at the will of either party. Simply requiring Cause is an infringement.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course there is, otherwise legislators would not need to abridge our privileges and immunities with for-cause requirements because at-will employment laws would be better adhered to.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

No, there is not. And if you want to talk about fallacies, you think the proof that there is a connection between at will employment laws and UC laws is that "...otherwise legislators would not need to abridge our privileges and immunities with for-cause requirements because at-will employment laws would be better adhered to"??

No, there is no connection. The Unemployment Compensation was created to provide assistance to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. If you needed financial assistance, why did you quit your job?

The assistance is for workers who need assistance. Not for leaches who want to live off the labors of others.

 

[WinterBorn]

The only requirements are those for employment at the will of either party. Simply requiring Cause is an infringement.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

The qualifications for unemployment compensation are not an infringement. They do not require Cause for employment.

 

[danielpalos]

No, there is not. And if you want to talk about fallacies, you think the proof that there is a connection between at will employment laws and UC laws is that "...otherwise legislators would not need to abridge our privileges and immunities with for-cause requirements because at-will employment laws would be better adhered to"??

No, there is no connection. The Unemployment Compensation was created to provide assistance to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. If you needed financial assistance, why did you quit your job?

The assistance is for workers who need assistance. Not for leaches who want to live off the labors of others.

Using your argument as an analogy; our Second Amendment means nothing since States can infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms via the police power simply because the Legislature enacted such public policies.

 

[danielpalos]

The qualifications for unemployment compensation are not an infringement. They do not require Cause for employment.

Of course they Infringe upon the Law regarding employment at-will. If you can legally quit on an at-will basis then Any for-Cause criteria infringe that privilege and immunity for any other policy Public enacted by the legislature.

 

[WinterBorn]

Using your argument as an analogy; our Second Amendment means nothing since States can infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms via the police power simply because the Legislature enacted such public policies.

No, you are wrong.

The actual analogy would be you claiming since we have a 2nd amendment we should all also have concealed carry and the gov't should buy our ammo for us.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course they Infringe upon the Law regarding employment at-will. If you can legally quit on an at-will basis then Any for-Cause criteria infringe that privilege and immunity for any other policy Public enacted by the legislature.

The privileges under at-will employment are completely intact. Nothing has changed.

Unemployment compensation is a completely different program that federal and state. At-will employment is purely state.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you are wrong.

The actual analogy would be you claiming since we have a 2nd amendment we should all also have concealed carry and the gov't should buy our ammo for us.

How did you reach that conclusion since it is not an analogy to your argument? Strawman arguments are what storytellers specialize in.

 

[danielpalos]

The privileges under at-will employment are completely intact. Nothing has changed.

Unemployment compensation is a completely different program that federal and state. At-will employment is purely state.

You merely appeal to ignorance and are obstinate about it, typical of the right-wing.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-Will Employment - Overview

Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any legal reason without incurring legal liability.

www.ncsl.org

Requiring good cause after the fact is a legal consequence.

 

[WinterBorn]

You merely appeal to ignorance and are obstinate about it, typical of the right-wing.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-Will Employment - Overview

Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any legal reason without incurring legal liability.

www.ncsl.org

Requiring good cause after the fact is a legal consequence.

There is no appeal to ignorance in my argument. It is fact based. Yours? Well, that is far more of an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Soupnazi630]

lol. I would not be asking you for a valid argument if you had one.

At-will employment law is being abridged for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Yes you would.

Just as you continue to repeat proven lies.

Now what rights or privileges are being abrisged and be specific.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Another strawman argument is duly noted. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.

We have equal protection of the law

Now answer the question

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your strawman argument is duly noted. Since you can quit on an at-will basis, it is extra-Constitutional to require Cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State because it abridges at-will employment law for those benefits.

I stated facts not a straw man now answer the question;

I said rights not handouts NO ONE has the right to anothers money.

Now answer the question coward

 

[danielpalos]

I stated facts not a straw man now answer the question;

I said rights not handouts NO ONE has the right to anothers money.

Now answer the question coward

You are simply Wrong like usual even though you are on the right. Congress is delegated the social power to Tax.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are simply Wrong like usual even though you are on the right. Congress is delegated the social power to Tax.

You have continued to repeat the same thing over and over and over. The at-will employment laws only describe the relationship of employer & employee and the ways that either can end that relationship.

The at-will employment laws do not extend to every facet of business/employment. They simply do not.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You are simply Wrong like usual even though you are on the right. Congress is delegated the social power to Tax.

No you are wrong and I am correct and that has been proven.

Now answer the question