danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #401
can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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,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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
Well, yeah, it can often be hard to prove discrimination unless the employer does say something stupid.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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
In other words, for any reason, so long as he keeps his mouth shut.
what about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
what about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
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.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
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 point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?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,can you tell me what you believe the concept of employment at will to be?
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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?
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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?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,
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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?
Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligationswhat about the employee?
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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?
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.Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.There is no appeal to ignorance of the law:At will employment only refers to employer's obligations
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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?
No, it's really not.Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?
No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.No, it's really not.Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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?
Yes, it really really is what the law states. .
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, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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.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."
What did you think the employee's obligations are under not at will employment?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.
Yes, I did miss that. Please post a copy.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, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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?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.
What a delicious word salad.No, it's really not.Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.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?
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.
dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.No, it's really not.Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.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.The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.
Yes, it really really is what the law states. .