Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

[danielpalos]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

 

[pinqy]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

 

[SwimExpert]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

In other words, for any reason, so long as he keeps his mouth shut.

 

[pinqy]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

In other words, for any reason, so long as he keeps his mouth shut.

Well, yeah, it can often be hard to prove discrimination unless the employer does say something stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

 

[Wry Catcher]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

The employee can be fired for any reason or lack of reason. HR calls the employee in, says give me your ID car and anything owned by the employer, then tells the guy or gal being let go, "I'm sorry, not everyone is cut out for this job".

Nothing more is said, that's what they teach in HR school, that's what keeps the employer out of court.

Right to Work is a euphemism for busting the unions, cutting wages and or benefits and never having to deal with strikes or negotiations. :Unions have standards, Right to work states hire off he street.

 

[danielpalos]

Some on the left are advancing the Cause of equality before the law regardless of Capital under our form of Capitalism.

 

[pinqy]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

 

[danielpalos]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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."

 

[pinqy]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

 

[danielpalos]

can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

 

[pinqy]

At will employment is the legal situation in which an employer may layoff or fire an employee without warning for any reason other than those specifically prohibited by law,

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

 

[danielpalos]

what about the employee?

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

 

[pinqy]

At will employment only refers to employer's obligations

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not. That model would create a strong disincentive to work and would provide a drain on the economy. Currently, let's say a family of 4 has one earner, who earns $60,000/year and can reasonably support his/her family on that. His/her spouse would be able, under your rules, to just collect between $11,770 and $20,090 just because s/he chooses not to work. With around 40 million non-working spouses, that's a lot of money.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it is really really what the law states. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws regardless of capital under our form of capitalism, due to the socialism of the rule of law over the rule of Men with Capital.

 

[pinqy]

The employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:

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 employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

That model would create a strong disincentive to work and would provide a drain on the economy. Currently, let's say a family of 4 has one earner, who earns $60,000/year and can reasonably support his/her family on that. His/her spouse would be able, under your rules, to just collect between $11,770 and $20,090 just because s/he chooses not to work. With around 40 million non-working spouses, that's a lot of money.

Did you miss the memo regarding capitalism's laziness regarding full employment of resources; we call it a natural rate of inefficiency just to "harass the right".

 

[pinqy]

The employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

That model would create a strong disincentive to work and would provide a drain on the economy. Currently, let's say a family of 4 has one earner, who earns $60,000/year and can reasonably support his/her family on that. His/her spouse would be able, under your rules, to just collect between $11,770 and $20,090 just because s/he chooses not to work. With around 40 million non-working spouses, that's a lot of money.

Did you miss the memo regarding capitalism's laziness regarding full employment of resources; we call it a natural rate of inefficiency just to "harass the right".

Yes, I did miss that. Please post a copy.

 

[AceRothstein]

The employee can quit or strike at any time even if the jurisdiction is not at will employment (unless there is an explicit contract). That's one of the justifications for at will employment: since the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, then the employer should also be able to.fire at any time for any reason.

What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really what the law states. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws regardless of capital under our form of capitalism, due to the socialism of the rule of law over the rule of Men with Capital.

What a delicious word salad.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: 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.