$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

Does UC law make it illegal for you to quit a job? Yes or no.

Does it deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through faithful execution of the law, yes or no?

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."

There is no basis to ignore at-will employment law through unequal protection for any benefits administered by (any Agency of) the State.

 

[hadit]

Does UC law make it illegal for you to quit a job? Yes or no.

Does it deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through faithful execution of the law, yes or no?

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."

There is no basis to ignore at-will employment law through unequal protection for any benefits administered by (any Agency of) the State.

1. No, it does not "deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through faithful execution of the law". It does not because offering compensation for people being laid off does not effect people's freedom to quit a job any more than people earning less than a certain amount of income being able to get food stamps effects my freedom to buy the food I want.
2. Your definition of at-will employment is correct. Note that in your definition there is no mention whatsoever of Unemployment Compensation, nor will you find any mention of at-will employment in Unemployment Compensation law. There is no linkage.
3. No one is ignoring anything and there is no "unequal protection for any benefits administered by (any Agency of) the State" because UC law does not discriminate on any basis prohibited by law. A black person laid off, for example, is no more prohibited from collecting UC than is a white person. A woman no more than a man, a homosexual than a heterosexual and so on.

Now, I've answered your question (even though I asked first), answer mine if you have any integrity.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

 

[hadit]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

On the contrary, UC law is not punitive nor is it restrictive, and it does not prevent you from quitting a job. It grants a benefit for those deemed to need it, aka means testing, and you've acknowledged that means testing is acceptable. That's where you're hung up and incorrect because you keep insisting UC law somehow prohibits you from quitting a job when it does not. I have asked you explicit questions regarding your freedom to quit a job that you have thus far refused to even acknowledge, much less answer. I've told you why UC law does not conflict with at-will employment and explained it thoroughly. Your response has simply been a stubborn, "Nuh-uh" with not legal rationale at all. IOW, you're full of fallacies.

Now, honestly answer the questions posed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

 

[danielpalos]

On the contrary, UC law is not punitive nor is it restrictive, and it does not prevent you from quitting a job.

Yes, it is punitive and restrictive of benefits based on at-will employment law. It is not welfare and they would have to base it on something other than Cause from an employment agreement; unless, it was a for-cause employment agreement.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

 

[hadit]

On the contrary, UC law is not punitive nor is it restrictive, and it does not prevent you from quitting a job.

Yes, it is punitive and restrictive of benefits based on at-will employment law. It is not welfare and they would have to base it on something other than Cause from an employment agreement; unless, it was a for-cause employment agreement.

You just keep robotically repeating that without any kind of supporting logic or legal decisions backing you up. You don't have the integrity to answer the questions I posed to you, so no wonder no one takes you seriously. Tell me how UC law prevents you from quitting a job. Put it in English and explain your logic. If you're going to try to claim you're prevented from quitting because it's too expensive while it would not be if you were able to get paid for quitting, I will point you in this direction:

Stand on the edge of the roof. 20 feet below you is the ground. Should you jump off, you will likely be hurt and may die. Are you legally prevented from jumping off? No. It would be stupid to do so without something to land on but you're not prevented from jumping. In fact, you're free to call to some friends and have them put an airbag down to catch you. Then, you notice that on the ground at one side of the building is a group of firemen with a net that you know will catch you safely should you land in it. At the edge of the roof, however, is a sign that says the firemen will only catch you if you are pushed off the roof. If you jump, you cannot land in the net. Are you legally prevented from jumping off? No. Again, it would be stupid but you're not prevented. In fact, the presence or absence of the net has no effect on your ability to get some friends to put down an airbag or for you to just jump if you don't like being on the roof.

In the same way that the net doesn't change your freedom to jump off the roof, UC doesn't change your freedom to quit a job. In fact, many people quit jobs every day. Most times they line up a new one first (like calling friends to put down an airbag to land on), but sometimes they're just plain fed up with a job and quit on the spot, hoping they'll find a new one before running out of money (just jumping off the roof and taking your chances on not getting hurt).

There, I've given you how the rest of the world thinks about at-will employment and UC, and explained the reasoning behind it. Your turn. Answer the questions I've asked you and explain why you think the entire legal profession is wrong. In sober English.

 

[hadit]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

And therein lies your fallacy. It does NOT have to apply to benefits, and I cite as evidence the very means testing you accept for welfare programs. The reason you can't get UC for quitting a job or never holding one is the same reason I can't get food stamps, neither one of us meets the criteria. Face it, you're making a false argument by pretending that means testing is illegitimate ONLY in the case of UC. Your fallacies abound.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

 

[dblack]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

He just makes that shit up. Haven't you guys figured that out yet? He dreams shit up when he's stoned, capitalizes a few words to make them seem important, and just repeats ad nauseam. Simple at-will poverty general warfare blah, blah, blah.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He just makes that shit up. Haven't you guys figured that out yet? He dreams shit up when he's stoned,

Which is pretty much 24/7.

That's why he wants bum payments.

 

[hadit]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

He just makes that shit up. Haven't you guys figured that out yet? He dreams shit up when he's stoned, capitalizes a few words to make them seem important, and just repeats ad nauseam. Simple at-will poverty general warfare blah, blah, blah.....

Oh, of course he does. In fact, he hasn't dreamed up anything original in years. I think he's past that point.

 

[danielpalos]

You just keep robotically repeating that without any kind of supporting logic or legal decisions backing you up.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance of the law. Why include any for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State, if at-will employment law has nothing to do with it? Means tested welfare has no at-will employment criteria only means testing for poverty.

Anything to do with Cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party for any benefits administered by any Agency of the State. It is an entitlement since equal protection of the laws is mandatory not optional and States may not impair in the obligation of contracts.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

And therein lies your fallacy. It does NOT have to apply to benefits, and I cite as evidence the very means testing you accept for welfare programs. The reason you can't get UC for quitting a job or never holding one is the same reason I can't get food stamps, neither one of us meets the criteria. Face it, you're making a false argument by pretending that means testing is illegitimate ONLY in the case of UC. Your fallacies abound.

Not a fallacy at all. It must apply to benefits since the law being referenced is at-will employment law. The State via its Agency would have use different criteria for you to be correct; means testing for welfare is one example.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

He just makes that shit up. Haven't you guys figured that out yet? He dreams shit up when he's stoned, capitalizes a few words to make them seem important, and just repeats ad nauseam. Simple at-will poverty general warfare blah, blah, blah.....

All it means is that you and right wingers are and always were, simply full of fallacy once this gets adjudicated. Nobody should take false witness bearing right wingers seriously about economics, ethics, the law, or morals.

 

[hadit]

You just keep robotically repeating that without any kind of supporting logic or legal decisions backing you up.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance of the law. Why include any for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State, if at-will employment law has nothing to do with it? Means tested welfare has no at-will employment criteria only means testing for poverty.

Anything to do with Cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party for any benefits administered by any Agency of the State. It is an entitlement since equal protection of the laws is mandatory not optional and States may not impair in the obligation of contracts.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

You are therefore saying that the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law and only you are not, because no one in the legal profession is saying what you are saying about UC law. And again, you focus only on this one law ignoring all the rest of them. UC law is means tested. You can only collect if you meet the criteria, which is that you got laid off. It is designed to help those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, NOT those who refuse to help themselves. Welfare is also means tested. You can only collect it if you meet the criteria. That is, for example, why I cannot collect food stamps because I earn too much income. It is only in your robotic mind that UC law is entangled with at-will employment law, and you have produced absolutely nothing that says otherwise. You are ignorant of the law, you are ignorant of what unequal protection under the law really is and you do not have any integrity because you refuse to answer the very simple questions posed to you multiple times. Answer them first, then you can go on reposting your pet phrases as if they're significant. I've posed for you multiple examples that perfectly illustrate exactly what I'm saying and you ignore them. You're not helping your case at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it does. What is the law they are basing it on? Equal protection is an entitlement not a privilege or immunity. That means no State nor any agency can create rules that deny or disparage faithful execution of the law. Simply requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of at-will employment law.

Everyone is equally allowed to quit without receiving unemployment benefits.
Everyone is equally allowed to receive unemployment benefits.......
If they qualify for unemployment benefits.
See your state for details.

The law is employment at will. It must also apply to benefits or it is unequal protection of the law regarding employment at-will. Otherwise, the State has to prove a for-cause employment agreement existed in an at-will employment State.

The law is employment at will.

Which still has zero to do with unemployment benefits, otherwise you'd be referencing laws
discussing "Unemployment benefits at will".

Got one of those?

The law being referenced is at-will employment law not any other law.

I agree, you have no reference to any law regarding unemployment insurance payments.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are therefore saying that the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law and only you are not, because no one in the legal profession is saying what you are saying about UC law.

He's not a lawyer, but he did smoke some weed in the parking lot of a Holiday Inn Express.