Unemployment benefits aren't causing a labor shortage. Low wages are. What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid low wage workers more

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

He refuses to call it welfare because there is a means test with welfare. In other words, before drawing welfare you have to show you need it to survive. He only wants the money.

 

[WinterBorn]

Most employers do not want their best employees to stay. This is a very short term employee market.

I disagree. In most businesses and industries the employers want their best employees to stay.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

People who are skilled workers will always be taken care of money-wise when in solid employment.

There's too many folk out there either unemployed or unskilled thinking they should be paid a lot more but based on absolutely nothing.

and I say that as someone who does an un-skilled job for minimum wage.

We all want more money for what we do - even the top film stars that get 30-million for about 7-weeks work making a movie.

What people need to realise is that when folk say (I'll use Wallmart as an example and a lot of this is guess work but you'll see the point I'm trying to make) that Wallmart made maybe 10-billion in profits last year yet their average employee only get's paid 13-dollars an hour therefore that's a disgrace etc etc.

Well break it down.

There's almost 5 thousand Wallmart stores in the USA.
At a guess, an average of what? 50 employee's per store across all shifts and departments? that's almost a quarter of a million employees in total.
Obviously some will work part-time, some will work flexi-time, some full-time, some weekend hours and some will do every hour of overtime under the sun - so let's say an average of a 30-hour week per person.
250,000 x 30 hour weeks x 52 weeks a year = 390 million man hours.
390 million man hours x an average wage of maybe 13-dollars an hour
If you were to add 2-dollars an hour more to that amount of man hours you're getting closer to a billion dollars a year more just for a small wage increase

Do you think Wallmart aren't going to then pass the cost onto the consumer? many folk will rant and rave about employees getting more pay - that's great - but as usual they fail to think even 1/2 steps beyond that and the impact of it. They'll also have something to say when the cost of their weekly shop goes up by about 10% to claw back the billion dollars they've just lost giving their staff a small pay rise. Think about it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

Nope. You have it completely wrong on that issue. Equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right.

Equal protection under the law does not get you UC. I have asked it before and I will ask it again. If you quit a job, the employer is deprived of your labor and you are deprived of a paycheck. How is that not equal? What does the employer get that you do not?

 

[danielpalos]

There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.

That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.

 

[danielpalos]

But what you want is money without having to work.

That is just You begging that question. It is about equality and equal protection of the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

He refuses to call it welfare because there is a means test with welfare. In other words, before drawing welfare you have to show you need it to survive. He only wants the money.

Equal protection of the laws is not welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.

That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.

They cannot punish you for quitting. But they do not have to pay you.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection under the law does not get you UC.

It should if employment is at the Will of Either party and unemployment compensation is compensation for unemployment in an at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

He refuses to call it welfare because there is a means test with welfare. In other words, before drawing welfare you have to show you need it to survive. He only wants the money.

Equal protection of the laws is not welfare.

UC is not for people who quit their job. UC is temporary. UC requires you be looking for a job. And UC pays less than you were making at your job.

 

[danielpalos]

There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.

That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.

They cannot punish you for quitting. But they do not have to pay you.

The State does because it is State public policy.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

He refuses to call it welfare because there is a means test with welfare. In other words, before drawing welfare you have to show you need it to survive. He only wants the money.

Equal protection of the laws is not welfare.

UC is not for people who quit their job. UC is temporary. UC requires you be looking for a job. And UC pays less than you were making at your job.

UC is compensation capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is all.

 

[WinterBorn]

Equal protection under the law does not get you UC.

It should if employment is at the Will of Either party and unemployment compensation is compensation for unemployment in an at-will employment State.

No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.

You had employment. You chose to leave it. Your choices have consequences.

Your version of UC would not be equal protection under the law. If you quit and still get paid, while the employer loses your labor and gets nothing, that is not equal protection under the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.

That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.

They cannot punish you for quitting. But they do not have to pay you.

The State does because it is State public policy.

The state does not punish you, penalize you, or hold you liable. You are free to quit. That does not mean the state will be responsible for providing you assistance until you find another job. They certainly will not be responsible for providing you assistance if you are not even looking for a job.

 

[danielpalos]

No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.

Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

He refuses to call it welfare because there is a means test with welfare. In other words, before drawing welfare you have to show you need it to survive. He only wants the money.

Equal protection of the laws is not welfare.

UC is not for people who quit their job. UC is temporary. UC requires you be looking for a job. And UC pays less than you were making at your job.

UC is compensation capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is all.

No, it is not. UC is to provide assistance for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is temporary assistance which pays less than your previous job.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Opinion | The "labor shortage" is actually a wage shortage

What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid people more, especially "low wage" workers?

www.msnbc.com

"The work Americans put in doesn't match the wages that come out, especially for lower earners, a gap that has become untenable for many."

Keeping wages depressed by flooding labor market is a reason Biden Admin won't secure border

If the Govt pays someone to play PlayStation it’s difficult for private businesses to compete and if they pay more then consumers pay more for products and or services. It’s not as simple as your OP states but you knew that and decided to troll anyway. There wasn’t a severe worker shortage prior to the excessive bailout.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.

Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.

You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.

 

[danielpalos]

There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.

That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.

They cannot punish you for quitting. But they do not have to pay you.

The State does because it is State public policy.

The state does not punish you, penalize you, or hold you liable. You are free to quit. That does not mean the state will be responsible for providing you assistance until you find another job. They certainly will not be responsible for providing you assistance if you are not even looking for a job.

Yes, that is the problem with laws that are not only repugnant to our Constitutions but also enable extremes of poverty and make means tested welfare more expensive due to the extensive administration costs.

 

[danielpalos]

No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.

Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.

You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.

From that employer not from the State.