Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[hadit]

One of the reasons for the higher multiplier effect is that the benefits are paid by the employer, not from tax money that would raise taxes.

Dannyboys plan would change that.

Exactly. He's basically saying you can change yellow into red and still call it yellow.

 

[WinterBorn]

Go ahead and explain why that is the case. Why does EDD require Good Cause if at-will is not part of employment laws?

UC is paid to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. Just because a person is fired for good cause does not mean they are free from any prosecution. They cannot be prosecuted for being fired, but the cause of their firing can be prosecuted if it warrant. Such as theft. If you steal $100k from your employer, you will be fired and prosecuted.

 

[struth]

Nobody but the right-wing appeals to ignorance of the law of my logic.

then show me some post from your left winger friends supperting it…or a left winger in Congress, or a Court opinion

show us..support your claims

 

[hadit]

I already have. Right-wingers merely seem incompetent and should be controlled more than women in abortion threads.

No, you haven't produced any link to any legal scholar or lawyer who agrees with you that the law as stated allows you to collect UC for quitting a job or never working one.

 

[WinterBorn]

No legal scholars disagree with me or you would post a link.

LMAO!! Oh, so I have to post a link to legal scholars who agree with me, but you don't? I have to post links to legal scholars who disagree with you?

You made the argument. You have to provide the proof, including legal scholars that agree with you. You haven't. Because you can't.

 

[hadit]

All you have lies and like to bullshit and waste time while learning Nothing.

And there's the classic Daniel admission of failure.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly. He's basically saying you can change yellow into red and still call it yellow.

All you have is ignorance not any "gospel Truth". The latest studies where they found to 2.0 multiplier was during the last recession when the government paid unemployment benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is paid to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. Just because a person is fired for good cause does not mean they are free from any prosecution. They cannot be prosecuted for being fired, but the cause of their firing can be prosecuted if it warrant. Such as theft. If you steal $100k from your employer, you will be fired and prosecuted.

Still not an explanation as to why they require Cause in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is paid to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. Just because a person is fired for good cause does not mean they are free from any prosecution. They cannot be prosecuted for being fired, but the cause of their firing can be prosecuted if it warrant. Such as theft. If you steal $100k from your employer, you will be fired and prosecuted.

No cause is required in an at-will employment State. Why the unequal protection of the law?

 

[danielpalos]

then show me some post from your left winger friends supperting it…or a left winger in Congress, or a Court opinion

show us..support your claims

I have a case before the Court now.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you haven't produced any link to any legal scholar or lawyer who agrees with you that the law as stated allows you to collect UC for quitting a job or never working one.

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."

 

[danielpalos]

LMAO!! Oh, so I have to post a link to legal scholars who agree with me, but you don't? I have to post links to legal scholars who disagree with you?

You made the argument. You have to provide the proof, including legal scholars that agree with you. You haven't. Because you can't.

lol. You are trying to make the counter-argument with nothing but fallacy.

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."

 

[danielpalos]

And there's the classic Daniel admission of failure.

And, there is the classic, "I am a right-winger and have nothing but lies but want to be taken as seriously as the gospel Truth, regardless".

 

[WinterBorn]

No cause is required in an at-will employment State. Why the unequal protection of the law?

Because one is simply describing the relationship between employer and employee, while the other is a benefit paid by the employer. If you quit a job the employer is left short-handed. And then you want that employer to PAY your benefits? Likewise, if an employer fires you, he then has to pay you to NOT work?

 

[WinterBorn]

lol. You are trying to make the counter-argument with nothing but fallacy.

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."

No, I am showing the hypocrisy in your claim that I have to show links to prove I am right, but you say you do not have to provide links to backup your claims.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have a case before the Court now.

What is the case number?

 

[danielpalos]

Because one is simply describing the relationship between employer and employee, while the other is a benefit paid by the employer.

So what. How does that change at-will employment law?

 

[danielpalos]

No, I am showing the hypocrisy in your claim that I have to show links to prove I am right, but you say you do not have to provide links to backup your claims.

Too bad you have nothing but fallacy not any reason.

 

[danielpalos]

What is the case number?

You have absolutely, no need to know, storyteller. You need valid arguments for that.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what. How does that change at-will employment law?

Because the benefits are not part of the at-will employment laws.

Montana is not an at-will employment state. And they have the exact same unemployment compensation laws as the other states.