Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[danielpalos]

Because, being legal to our own laws, is moral. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Again, you've not shown the laws are being neither followed nor unconstitutional.

A State is at-will or not.

Of course it is. And unemployment benifits are available to those who lose their job at no fault of their own. Who knows why you're incapable of grasping such a simple concept?

For-Cause employment must be proved by EDD to deny or disparage benefits; otherwise, it is a misuse of process that has the effect of being repugnant to the law regarding employment at will.

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

 

[Faun]

Again, you've not shown the laws are being neither followed nor unconstitutional.

A State is at-will or not.

Of course it is. And unemployment benifits are available to those who lose their job at no fault of their own. Who knows why you're incapable of grasping such a simple concept?

For-Cause employment must be proved by EDD to deny or disparage benefits; otherwise, it is a misuse of process that has the effect of being repugnant to the law regarding employment at will.

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

 

[danielpalos]

A State is at-will or not.

Of course it is. And unemployment benifits are available to those who lose their job at no fault of their own. Who knows why you're incapable of grasping such a simple concept?

For-Cause employment must be proved by EDD to deny or disparage benefits; otherwise, it is a misuse of process that has the effect of being repugnant to the law regarding employment at will.

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

 

[danielpalos]

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about politics or morals.

They have nothing but repeal. Like that really works, on St. Pete.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

 

[Faun]

Of course it is. And unemployment benifits are available to those who lose their job at no fault of their own. Who knows why you're incapable of grasping such a simple concept?

For-Cause employment must be proved by EDD to deny or disparage benefits; otherwise, it is a misuse of process that has the effect of being repugnant to the law regarding employment at will.

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE - UIC"

 

[danielpalos]

For-Cause employment must be proved by EDD to deny or disparage benefits; otherwise, it is a misuse of process that has the effect of being repugnant to the law regarding employment at will.

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

 

[Faun]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

 

[Faun]

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.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Why do you keep rpeating things no one is arguing but flat out refuse to answer questions?

Why should folks who quit their job without good cause be compensating with unemployment benefits?

 

[Faun]

Says you, sourcing no one. The law indicates otherwise.

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

 

[12icer]

The constant lies and stupid fantasy bullshit you and the other liberals post is worthless, and a waste of time and bandwidth, this entire forum is becoming the same LYING old narrative by the leftist scum, each thread is just the same, You lie we rebut with the truth and you try to find a way to make your lies true, or acceptable. Boring as hell reading the same old lies day in day out. It is just like the global warming, the Russian collusion, The always wrong constitutional statements, You are close to being as wrong as the ninth liberal circuit about everything. A 90+ rate of wrong is a failing grade. Makes all of you not worth the trouble of conversing with you are all like a kindergartner spouting complex vector analysis.

 

[Faun]

The constant lies and stupid fantasy bullshit you and the other liberals post is worthless, and a waste of time and bandwidth, this entire forum is becoming the same LYING old narrative by the leftist scum, each thread is just the same, You lie we rebut with the truth and you try to find a way to make your lies true, or acceptable. Boring as hell reading the same old lies day in day out. It is just like the global warming, the Russian collusion, The always wrong constitutional statements, You are close to being as wrong as the ninth liberal circuit about everything. A 90+ rate of wrong is a failing grade. Makes all of you not worth the trouble of conversing with you are all like a kindergartner spouting complex vector analysis.

You mean the Liberal lie that the unemployment rate went from about 40% to under 5% from 2016 to 2017?

“Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. As high as 35 — as in fact, I heard recently, 42 percent.” ~ Donald Trump, 2.9.2016​

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Why do you keep rpeating things no one is arguing but flat out refuse to answer questions?

Why should folks who quit their job without good cause be compensating with unemployment benefits?

The letter of the law?

 

[danielpalos]

What law? Where does it say that in any labor code?

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

 

[danielpalos]

The constant lies and stupid fantasy bullshit you and the other liberals post is worthless, and a waste of time and bandwidth, this entire forum is becoming the same LYING old narrative by the leftist scum, each thread is just the same, You lie we rebut with the truth and you try to find a way to make your lies true, or acceptable. Boring as hell reading the same old lies day in day out. It is just like the global warming, the Russian collusion, The always wrong constitutional statements, You are close to being as wrong as the ninth liberal circuit about everything. A 90+ rate of wrong is a failing grade. Makes all of you not worth the trouble of conversing with you are all like a kindergartner spouting complex vector analysis.

Only the right wing, does that.

 

[danielpalos]

The constant lies and stupid fantasy bullshit you and the other liberals post is worthless, and a waste of time and bandwidth, this entire forum is becoming the same LYING old narrative by the leftist scum, each thread is just the same, You lie we rebut with the truth and you try to find a way to make your lies true, or acceptable. Boring as hell reading the same old lies day in day out. It is just like the global warming, the Russian collusion, The always wrong constitutional statements, You are close to being as wrong as the ninth liberal circuit about everything. A 90+ rate of wrong is a failing grade. Makes all of you not worth the trouble of conversing with you are all like a kindergartner spouting complex vector analysis.

You mean the Liberal lie that the unemployment rate went from about 40% to under 5% from 2016 to 2017?

“Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. As high as 35 — as in fact, I heard recently, 42 percent.” ~ Donald Trump, 2.9.2016​

Why cut taxes for the rich and social benefits for the poor, in that case?

 

[Faun]

nothing but diversion from the right wing; is just politics and right wing, "hate on the poor".

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Even simple ones like this ....

Of which right wingers do you speak?

Did you know, you have the right wing propaganda down pat, on this issue?

No, I don't know that. I do know you have the crazy side nailed down though.

 

[Faun]

The law I cited earlier.

That is not the labor code. try again.

It's California law and falls under the section titled, "DIVISION 1. UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY COMPENSATION"

Not the Labor Code; I got it. Looks like a simple, conflict of laws.

Oh? Cite the law you think contradicts that...?

A federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, contradicts that. Are you new to this argument, dear?

That's not a law. You know that, right?

You said the California law I cited contradicts California labor law...

Cite the law it contradicts. With the statute number....