Unemployed need not apply

[danielpalos]

Republicans like to blame all the unemployed on Obama but they don't ask the corporations they serve to stop the practice of not hiring people who are out of work.

Corporations are being really picky. I think they like unemployment high. It keeps wages down. I remember an article years ago explaining that's what Greenspan said it was his responsibility to keep wages low they need unemployment to be high but not too high.

Wages and employment are being kept down because employers are being strangled by the cost of Obamacare. Ever think of that?

No.

CORPORATE profits are at their highest level in at least 85 years. Employee compensation is at the lowest level in 65 years.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/b...-as-slice-of-economy-as-wages-slide.html?_r=0

 

[FA_Q2]

And in California, I have read one qualification for a growing number of corporations is to speak Spanish. The trend is growing.

**** that, you come here you learn the language

Not much you can do about that. Considering that companies can set pretty much whatever requirements they want, having an excess number of applicants grants them the ability to demand such things.

Could it be that being bi lingual makes good business sense. ?

Depends on the position and field. In the vast majority of cases, being bi-lingual is utterly meaningless. However, many positions such as retail in southern CA (or anywhere near the border) or construction it is a huge asset.

singing to the choir I am A so cal native.

LOL. Just noticed your location. Lived there myself as well as in Chino. Speaking Spanish is useful particularly in Chino.

I am a gringo though - I tried to lean Spanish but failed miserable. Absolutely no head for another language. Now math and science - THAT I can do. Language, not so much.

 

[danielpalos]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

 

[Obiwan]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

That depends on the employer's needs.

 

[FA_Q2]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

 

[danielpalos]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

That depends on the employer's needs.

How does that work in at-will employment States. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in any case of an employer claiming they have no need to practice an employment ethic.

 

[danielpalos]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

 

[BlueGin]

Republicans like to blame all the unemployed on Obama but they don't ask the corporations they serve to stop the practice of not hiring people who are out of work.

Corporations are being really picky. I think they like unemployment high. It keeps wages down. I remember an article years ago explaining that's what Greenspan said it was his responsibility to keep wages low they need unemployment to be high but not too high.

Wages and employment are being kept down because employers are being strangled by the cost of Obamacare. Ever think of that?

false employment is being kept down by employers who falsely assume the aca will hurt their bottom line.

Must be why several corporations in the healthcare industry now outsource several of their call centers to other countries.

 

[Obiwan]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Gee, that's why they have unemployment compensation for layoffs. Of course, being let go for cause is another story.

 

[FA_Q2]

With millions out of work corporations can afford to be picky.

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Why not simply employ yourself then?

It is not 'equality' in any shape or form. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Employment is neither a right nor guaranteed. You obviously want it so but that does not change reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no need to practice an employment ethic.

sounds totally stupid and 100% liberal of course. The faster and cheaper an employer can get rid of an employee the faster and cheaper he can hire the next person. The govt has not interest in being concerned about the fired guy more than the about to be hired guy.

Does the liberal have the IQ to understand??

 

[danielpalos]

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Gee, that's why they have unemployment compensation for layoffs. Of course, being let go for cause is another story.

There is no Cause under the concept of employment at will; a good cause may be a rational choice as a business practice in any given situation.

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

this Idiot actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

 

[Obiwan]

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Gee, that's why they have unemployment compensation for layoffs. Of course, being let go for cause is another story.

There is no Cause under the concept of employment at will; a good cause may be a rational choice as a business practice in any given situation.

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

If you have worked enough qualifying quarters, and you were not working as an independent contractor (meaning you were your own employer), you can be disqualified for the following reasons...

Unemployment Disqualifications

While many workers who are fired or laid off are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, there are some disqualifying factors that can render a person ineligible for receiving these payments. The exact circumstances in which unemployment payments will be approved or denied are set on a state level, not a national one, so there may be some differences depending on the location of the job loss. In most states, however, an employee will be disqualified from unemployment benefit eligibility if he or she is fired for misconduct, willful behavior, or other justifiable cause. Generally speaking, this means that if an employee engages in prohibited or illegal activity, violates company policy, or otherwise does something intentional that leads to being fired, he or she may be disqualified from receiving unemployment payments.

An employee will also be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when he or she quits without good cause to quit. The precise definition of good cause varies by state. However, if an employee is forced to quit, or is “constructively discharged” because of illegal discrimination or other illegal action taken by the employer, this will generally be defined as good cause for quitting. However, most reasons for quitting will not qualify as good cause. Examples of such reasons include entering school, getting married, being involved in a labor dispute (i.e., strike), or simple job dissatisfaction.

In most states, being unable to work disqualifies an individual from receiving unemployment benefits. This is because unemployment benefits are paid to individuals on the condition that they look for new work. If an individual is completely unemployable, then he or she will be unable to meet this condition, and will therefore be disqualified from unemployment benefit eligibility.



Read more: Unemployment Disqualifications

So basically, don't just quit your job, get canned for misconduct , or refuse to look for other work.

And be employable.... Nobody wants you if you're not.

 

[Obiwan]

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

this Idiot actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

Possibly unemployable?????

 

[danielpalos]

Why require a work ethic of Only labor and not also an employment ethic from employers; especially in Right to Work States.

Buzzword.

You need to explain what you mean by an employment ethic. You do realize that there are legal protections that employees benefit from. There is almost nothing on the other end of that.

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Why not simply employ yourself then?

It is not 'equality' in any shape or form. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Employment is neither a right nor guaranteed. You obviously want it so but that does not change reality.

I would, but some people who are not voluntary participants to my social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade sometimes object due to their subjective value of morals, and insist on imposing those alleged morals on other People.

They are just bad socialists and worse capitalists, and probably don't even know it.

Equality (before the law) is a social concept not a capital concept even under our form of capitalism where the wealthiest can even retain their multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, even if they have to imperil the greater social glory of their immortal souls.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

this Idiot actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

dear, you just need to be an adult to understand adult arguments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

this Idiot actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

this idiot liberal actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

 

[danielpalos]

If labor should work shouldn't employers hire anyone who wants to work?

No.

That is altruistic and asinine. It ignores the most basic driver of employment: NEED.

Why of employment for a wage instead of employment for a vocation. If an employer has no need for employees then unemployment compensation should be automatic.

It is not altruistic nor asinine, but that form of equality; why am i not surprised you don't recognize it; too socialist for you.

Gee, that's why they have unemployment compensation for layoffs. Of course, being let go for cause is another story.

There is no Cause under the concept of employment at will; a good cause may be a rational choice as a business practice in any given situation.

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

If you have worked enough qualifying quarters, and you were not working as an independent contractor (meaning you were your own employer), you can be disqualified for the following reasons...

Unemployment Disqualifications

While many workers who are fired or laid off are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, there are some disqualifying factors that can render a person ineligible for receiving these payments. The exact circumstances in which unemployment payments will be approved or denied are set on a state level, not a national one, so there may be some differences depending on the location of the job loss. In most states, however, an employee will be disqualified from unemployment benefit eligibility if he or she is fired for misconduct, willful behavior, or other justifiable cause. Generally speaking, this means that if an employee engages in prohibited or illegal activity, violates company policy, or otherwise does something intentional that leads to being fired, he or she may be disqualified from receiving unemployment payments.

An employee will also be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when he or she quits without good cause to quit. The precise definition of good cause varies by state. However, if an employee is forced to quit, or is “constructively discharged” because of illegal discrimination or other illegal action taken by the employer, this will generally be defined as good cause for quitting. However, most reasons for quitting will not qualify as good cause. Examples of such reasons include entering school, getting married, being involved in a labor dispute (i.e., strike), or simple job dissatisfaction.

In most states, being unable to work disqualifies an individual from receiving unemployment benefits. This is because unemployment benefits are paid to individuals on the condition that they look for new work. If an individual is completely unemployable, then he or she will be unable to meet this condition, and will therefore be disqualified from unemployment benefit eligibility.



Read more: Unemployment Disqualifications

So basically, don't just quit your job, get canned for misconduct , or refuse to look for other work.

And be employable.... Nobody wants you if you're not.

Yes, only bad socialists and worse capitalists appeal to ignorance of the legal concept of employment at will regarding unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the Right appealing to ignorance of the law for their "gospel Truth" causes.

this Idiot actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

this idiot liberal actually assumes his gibberish English is really genius

dear, you really are so special; socialism has been carrying the "hard work" ethic since capitalism failed in 1929.