What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

I'm just putting laughing emojis on all his word-salad posts.

lol. Typically, it just seems right wingers are just plain political liars when their lips are moving or they are typing on the internet. Should I believe your "gospel Truth" more than mine?

 

[hadit]

IOW, the written text of the law doesn't matter when you decide for yourself what the law ought to actually mean. Can you cite a single legal decision that supports your assertion?

The law in question is employment at will.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Where does it say you need Cause to quit? That is the law in question. Any agency of a State is simply violating due process by imposing, unilaterally upon Labor as the least wealthy in our economy, any for-cause criteria.

And again, the two are separate issues. Whether you have to have cause to quit or the employer has to have cause to fire you is totally and completely immaterial to the question of whether you can collect UC as a consequence. All UC does is look at the reasons you currently are unemployed, and if those reasons meet a criteria, allow you to collect. It has nothing to do with who has the ability to terminate your employment.

 

[danielpalos]

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

You can only be fired for-cause if you have a for-cause employment agreement otherwise an employee is fired at-will, for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all. Due process is being violated if the State cannot prove a for-cause employment agreement existed.

Due process only applies if the law specifies such a process that must be followed. At will means there is no process that must be followed so the state has nothing to say about whether you get fired or not. What the state DOES have something to say about, however, is whether you can subsequently collect UC as a result. The two are not so related that one overrides the other, contrary to your thought process.

Employment at will is the law that must be followed. It really is that simple. Only right wingers make it more complicated.

 

[hadit]

I'm just putting laughing emojis on all his word-salad posts.

lol. Typically, it just seems right wingers are just plain political liars when their lips are moving or they are typing on the internet. Should I believe your "gospel Truth" more than mine?

Yes, absolutely, because your "truth" is fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

I see why you believe it works, but the fact is the current laws are constitutional and therefore they provide equal protection for both the employer and the employee

You are assuming the precedent which is usually considered a fallacy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am claiming someone could merely quit and collect unemployment if they don't like their job instead of striking.

You're claiming a lot of things. That's a new one. A new variation on the theme anyway. Like it or not, your sales technique really sucks. You need to sell far more specifically how society as a whole would still function and benefit. Saying, in effect, Gee whiz fellas, I really, really believe that just doing this will solve all that! appeals only to gullible fools.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

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."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

Okay, as written your claim means that children should be getting UC payments. Is that what you intend? If so, quit and go home right now. If not, admit that you've applied means testing criteria and your whole argument is gone.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

Whoops, you're talking about means testing criteria. Now you are saying that the law does NOT apply to everyone, but only to adults. If you can use criteria to exclude people from protection of the law, so can others. You have no leg left to stand on and UC law as written is constitutional.

Child labor laws are already on the books. Employment usually involves competent adults. And, the remedy is already available, all a minor would need do is petition for emancipation to be treated as an adult.

Sorry, but now you're ASSUMING (by saying "usually") that criteria can exclude people but that's not the way the law works. The law goes by the actual written text. Why do you think you argue about the 2nd Amendment all the time? It's because it's not written out exhaustively to explain every single contingency, but laws written regarding it cannot violate it. And that's why defense lawyers study laws so carefully, to see if their client can claim the law doesn't cover his circumstance. No, you claimed for a very long time that there can be no means testing of UC, and now you're admitting that there can. Means testing is part of virtually every law written, because most laws don't apply to every person. Your entire argument hinges on your personal interpretation of the word "unemployment", beyond which you refuse to venture, even though the laws are written to define what "unemployment" means in the context of the law and who qualifies for it. Sorry, but until you can present a legal decision to the contrary, UC law is constitutional.

Minors need parental consent and maybe supervision.

 

[hadit]

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

You can only be fired for-cause if you have a for-cause employment agreement otherwise an employee is fired at-will, for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all. Due process is being violated if the State cannot prove a for-cause employment agreement existed.

Due process only applies if the law specifies such a process that must be followed. At will means there is no process that must be followed so the state has nothing to say about whether you get fired or not. What the state DOES have something to say about, however, is whether you can subsequently collect UC as a result. The two are not so related that one overrides the other, contrary to your thought process.

Employment at will is the law that must be followed. It really is that simple. Only right wingers make it more complicated.

And it is. The fact that you redefine words and re-interpret stuff to mean something different doesn't apply.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you can quit a job whenever you want and you can get fired from a job whenever the employer wants to fire you. That's one issue. A SEPARATE issue is whether you qualify for UC as a result of not having a job. Quite clearly, you qualify if you were laid off, which means fired through no fault of your own. If you quit, you don't qualify, it's just that simple, and the number of times you stomp your feet or how long you hold your breath over it have no bearing whatsoever.

Y'all keep missing the point about employment at will. Where did an Agency of a State have any authority to impair in the obligation of at-will employment law in an at-will employment State? Simply enacting any for-cause criteria is an impairment to at-will employment law.

 

[danielpalos]

It is stated when you are hired and they have you sign for the employee handbook. That statement that you signed says you agree to the policies and rules of the employer.

Besides, since it is at will employment, the employer can fire you at any time for any reason. The for cause comes into play when you want to collect UC. You do not draw UC for violating the contract you agreed to when you were hired.

Employers have no authority over at-will employment law. Only unequal protection of the law enables that injustice to labor as the least wealthy in our republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Employers are allowed to create a contractual agreement with the employees. Violate that contract and you can be fired. A state cannot enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. But a private business can enter into a contract. In fact, your own post states that the State cannot impair the obligation of contracts.

Employers cannot be illegal to the law, either. The general presumption is employment at will in any at-will employment State. For-cause employment agreements must be negotiated as well. And, EDD has to prove there was a for-cause employment relationship in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

You're missing the point, of course, which is that you have to confiscate someone's income in order to provide income for someone else.

I am not missing the point about that. You are missing the point that even confiscating someone's money via taxes to provide an income for someone else has the net effect of a stimulus to an economy not a deterrent. The proof is that unemployment compensation has already been measured to have multiplier of two. A stimulus to an economy not a deterrent to an economy.

But you are not accounting for the opportunity cost, which means at best the net result is a wash, because the money would have been spent either way. Now, if you're talking about an actual stimulus, that's a different beast, because that is the government borrowing to pump money into the economy for a short term gain. Used correctly, it can prevent the economy from sliding into a depression or total collapse, but that isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a permanent setup wherein the government takes money from the people earning it and gives it to the people who not only did not earn it, but could have and decided not to. Society has long ago agreed that those who CANNOT work should be taken care of, and we put into place taxes and programs to help them. You want to drastically expand that now to cover those who CAN work but choose not to, and that's an order of magnitude difference.

Except for the fact that regular government spending including defense spending has a multiplier of .8, while unemployment compensation generates a multiplier of 2. Unemployment compensation is a stimulant to an economy as well as an Automatic stabilizer.

 

[danielpalos]

That's because there's nothing to rebut. You spewed nonsense that didn't relate.

I could say the same thing about right wingers. Y'all have nothing but fallacy not any valid arguments for rebuttal. See how easy it is. Why do you believe you have any "gospel Truth" when you are on the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

Employment is at the will of either party. There is no for-cause criteria attached to it. And, under Capitalism if you want someone to work you need to pay an attractive wage. Your alleged morals mean nothing under Capitalism where Greed is Good.

My morals are not the issue. Violating your agreement with your employer is the issue.

There may be no "for cause criteria" attached to the at will employment. But there is a "for cause" criteria attached to UC. If you are fired for violating your contract (verbal or written) with your employer, you do not get to collect UC. That is the way it is, and the way it will likely stay.

And, that for-cause criteria is a violation of due process since States may not impair in the obligation of at-will employment Contracts by attaching for-cause criteria.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

You can't claim that for cause criteria is valid in some cases but violates due process in others. Either laws can be written that don't apply to everyone or they can't. Is welfare unconstitutional because it has criteria? Are truck and bus driving laws unconstitutional because they don't apply to people driving their own cars?

You are comparing apples to oranges. At-will employment law is very specific.

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

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."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

Okay, as written your claim means that children should be getting UC payments. Is that what you intend? If so, quit and go home right now. If not, admit that you've applied means testing criteria and your whole argument is gone.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

Whoops, you're talking about means testing criteria. Now you are saying that the law does NOT apply to everyone, but only to adults. If you can use criteria to exclude people from protection of the law, so can others. You have no leg left to stand on and UC law as written is constitutional.

Child labor laws are already on the books. Employment usually involves competent adults. And, the remedy is already available, all a minor would need do is petition for emancipation to be treated as an adult.

Sorry, but now you're ASSUMING (by saying "usually") that criteria can exclude people but that's not the way the law works. The law goes by the actual written text. Why do you think you argue about the 2nd Amendment all the time? It's because it's not written out exhaustively to explain every single contingency, but laws written regarding it cannot violate it. And that's why defense lawyers study laws so carefully, to see if their client can claim the law doesn't cover his circumstance. No, you claimed for a very long time that there can be no means testing of UC, and now you're admitting that there can. Means testing is part of virtually every law written, because most laws don't apply to every person. Your entire argument hinges on your personal interpretation of the word "unemployment", beyond which you refuse to venture, even though the laws are written to define what "unemployment" means in the context of the law and who qualifies for it. Sorry, but until you can present a legal decision to the contrary, UC law is constitutional.

Minors need parental consent and maybe supervision.

So do a lot of adults, but that doesn't have anything to do with the constitutionality of UC laws. Face reality, you destroyed your own argument.

 

[danielpalos]

and that definition does not apply to any of your uses of the word since you were applying it to labor

It must work in any competitive market.

 

[Blues Man]

Sure, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you can quit a job whenever you want and you can get fired from a job whenever the employer wants to fire you. That's one issue. A SEPARATE issue is whether you qualify for UC as a result of not having a job. Quite clearly, you qualify if you were laid off, which means fired through no fault of your own. If you quit, you don't qualify, it's just that simple, and the number of times you stomp your feet or how long you hold your breath over it have no bearing whatsoever.

Y'all keep missing the point about employment at will. Where did an Agency of a State have any authority to impair in the obligation of at-will employment law in an at-will employment State? Simply enacting any for-cause criteria is an impairment to at-will employment law.

you don't seem to understand

At will employment is the employers prerogative not the employee's.

As an at will employee you are working without a contract and under the assumption that your employment is temporary so that either you or your employer can terminate your employment without any breech of contract.

Employment at will does not mean you can choose not to work and still get paid.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly my shop doesn't operate in a vacuum which is why I cannot make myself noncompetitive by charging exorbitant prices so as to cover the high salaries you say everyone deserves

The point is your competition has to deal with the same statutory minimum wage laws. So, how is your shop operating in any sort of vacuum?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes it is. You are correct. But qualifying for UC has its own set of standards.

The State standard is employment at-will. EDD making up its own standards is a violation of due process when they don't follow State law.

 

[hadit]

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

Employment is at the will of either party. There is no for-cause criteria attached to it. And, under Capitalism if you want someone to work you need to pay an attractive wage. Your alleged morals mean nothing under Capitalism where Greed is Good.

My morals are not the issue. Violating your agreement with your employer is the issue.

There may be no "for cause criteria" attached to the at will employment. But there is a "for cause" criteria attached to UC. If you are fired for violating your contract (verbal or written) with your employer, you do not get to collect UC. That is the way it is, and the way it will likely stay.

And, that for-cause criteria is a violation of due process since States may not impair in the obligation of at-will employment Contracts by attaching for-cause criteria.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

You can't claim that for cause criteria is valid in some cases but violates due process in others. Either laws can be written that don't apply to everyone or they can't. Is welfare unconstitutional because it has criteria? Are truck and bus driving laws unconstitutional because they don't apply to people driving their own cars?

You are comparing apples to oranges. At-will employment law is very specific.

So are truck and bus driving laws, but the principle is the same in that the laws are not written to apply to everyone. You don't get to pick and choose, either laws can be written to apply to specific people in specific circumstances or they cannot. If you claim they cannot, then you must complain that truck drivers are being unfairly oppressed by the law because they can't drive 18 hours straight while you can in your car. And if the laws can be so written, UC laws that restrict collection to only those laid off from jobs are constitutional. You have yet to provide a legal opinion that supports your assertion.