$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

 

[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.

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

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I haven't had at least two score and seven suits at law dismissed either. Only paid professionals have that happen under Capitalism.

 

[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.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

One law conflicts with the other.

You're lying.

 

[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.

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

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

One law conflicts with the other.

You're lying.

No, you are. See how easy it is when you don't need valid (legal) arguments.

 

[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.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

One law conflicts with the other.

You're lying.

No, you are. See how easy it is when you don't need valid (legal) arguments.

Dude, that shit's gonna ruin your lungs.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, you already lost the argument by having nothing but fallacy. Thanks for playing.

 

[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.

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.

why would they use criteria that doesn't relate to the situation? The means being tested is whether you were laid off. UC is means tested and valid. You are simply wrong and everyone in the legal profession (they all disagree with you) are right.

 

[hadit]

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.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

IOW, you claim that the entire legal profession, who disagrees with you, is wrong and you, who are not a lawyer and who has never studied the law, are right. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

 

[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?

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.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

 

[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?

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.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

One law conflicts with the other.

You're lying.

No, you are. See how easy it is when you don't need valid (legal) arguments.

Dude, that shit's gonna ruin your lungs.

It's already ruined his mind.

 

[hadit]

Dude, you already lost the argument by having nothing but fallacy. Thanks for playing.

That's a laugh coming from you.

 

[Supposn]

And that's why states and cities should be free to set their own MW where it makes sense for them, instead of having the federal government force fit everyone into one level.

Hadit, the federal minimum rate passed by our Congress is what they determined to be A MINIMUM applicable for those employers and employees within our nation. But it is not the same effectively uniform rate within every USA state. States may, and many individual states do modify the effective minimum within their state’s jurisdiction.

Employees and their dependents within states of governments having lesser consideration for their citizens, (i.e. states of lower applicable minimum wage rates), proportional to their wages, are the greatest beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate.
States can choose to modify the federal minimum rate statutes within their own jurisdictions, they’re prohibited from infringing upon or otherwise undermining any USA employees and other USA entities¸ (particularly other state's labor markets), from their protections due to the currently effective federal Fair Labor Practices act’s statutes.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[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.

why would they use criteria that doesn't relate to the situation? The means being tested is whether you were laid off. UC is means tested and valid. You are simply wrong and everyone in the legal profession (they all disagree with you) are right.

The mere fact that they have to use conditions based on at-will employment law means an entitlement to equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

IOW, you claim that the entire legal profession, who disagrees with you, is wrong and you, who are not a lawyer and who has never studied the law, are right. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

lol. No. Only You claim that. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

 

[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.

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

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

 

[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.

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.

why would they use criteria that doesn't relate to the situation? The means being tested is whether you were laid off. UC is means tested and valid. You are simply wrong and everyone in the legal profession (they all disagree with you) are right.

The mere fact that they have to use conditions based on at-will employment law means an entitlement to equal protection of the law.

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with. Like I've said before, you're fixated on this one law and can't see your raging hypocrisy in regards to other law. You're just plain wrong and you can't cite any legal decision that supports your assertion. Means testing is legitimate, even when applied to UC law. You just can't get around that.

 

[hadit]

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.

lol. You are not the entire legal profession.

Have a "legal professional" come on here and gainsay my contention and "make it stick". I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies, not the nine hundred and ninety-nine of the those of the opposing view.

IOW, you claim that the entire legal profession, who disagrees with you, is wrong and you, who are not a lawyer and who has never studied the law, are right. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

lol. No. Only You claim that. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.

No one, I mean no one, takes you seriously. It is only in your leftwing mind that you are correct on just about anything.

 

[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?

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.

One law conflicts with the other. Only one law can be supreme in any conflict of laws.

They don't conflict. You are wrong. Proof? You can quit a job whether someone pays you to do it or not.

You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual. Yes, they do conflict in an at-will employment State where no Cause may be required.

You've ignored everything to the contrary and refuse to honestly answer questions that you know will destroy your case. You're simply wrong. There is no conflict because UC can be just as means tested as welfare and any number of other laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.