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

[Blues Man]

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.

for commodities and real property not for labor.

You cannot buy a person's labor then sell it on the market because it has no value until that labor is realized by an employer in the production of a product or service.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

I never said it was operating in a vacuum.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you lying again?

Post the statutory law that makes the private sector a price taker, liar.

Any minimum wage law does that. I don't need to lie, I am not on the right wing.

 

[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.

The law is employment at the will of either party.

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.

The process is clear.

 

[hadit]

No, you are well and truly caught, because you want to apply means testing criteria, but deny that any other than what you apply are valid. You insisted that there be no means testing whatsoever, and now you want means testing. If children can be excluded, so can adults who quit a job or never held one.

Typically, only competent adults may enter legally binding contracts.

And there are the criteria again. Face it, criteria determining whom a law applies to and doesn't apply to are legal and constitutional. You don't get to pick and choose which ones are valid and which ones are not. THAT would be unequal protection of the law. UC would only be unequally applied if two people with identical work situations were treated differently, and they are not.

 

[danielpalos]

You're wrong again.

You can be fired for cause from any employment there is no need for some special agreement.

You can also be fired at will.

The point is, an employer can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all on an at-will basis. And, the employee can also quit, strike, or otherwise cease work; with no legal or moral prejudice at law.

 

[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.

The law is employment at the will of either party.

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.

The process is clear.

What is the process? What you quoted says nothing about process, it merely establishes that employment may be terminated by either party and defines employment for a specified term. State the process that you think is so clear, and then explain why it has anything to do with the state deciding whether you qualify for UC or not.

 

[hadit]

You're wrong again.

You can be fired for cause from any employment there is no need for some special agreement.

You can also be fired at will.

The point is, an employer can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all on an at-will basis. And, the employee can also quit, strike, or otherwise cease work; with no legal or moral prejudice at law.

Collecting UC is a completely different matter.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is only one issue, the law government employment relationships. Employment is at the will of either party. EDD has no legal basis to impose for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State absent a for-cause employment agreement or contract.

 

[hadit]

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.

Did you bother to check out the link I posted that defined the multiplier effect and the damage done to the economy when private sector spending drops off?

 

[hadit]

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.

There is only one issue, the law government employment relationships. Employment is at the will of either party. EDD has no legal basis to impose for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State absent a for-cause employment agreement or contract.

Show me the legal opinion that creates that linkage, because thus far all you have is you insisting it's there when it's not. You argue as if this is settled law when the opposite is true.

 

[Blues Man]

You're wrong again.

You can be fired for cause from any employment there is no need for some special agreement.

You can also be fired at will.

The point is, an employer can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all on an at-will basis. And, the employee can also quit, strike, or otherwise cease work; with no legal or moral prejudice at law.

correct but if an employee is fired for cause or quits he most likely won't be able to collect unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Capitalism, what is That sayeth the right wing. Right wingers keep proving they don't really believe in voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.

We would not need statutory minimum wage laws.

We would have no homeless problem.

There would be an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

Our economy would be better stabilized automatically.

The multiplier is 2 for unemployment compensation versus .8 for general government spending including defense spending.

It would be more cost effective than what we have now and labor including unemployed potential labor would be much more efficiently allocated.

Costs to the employer would be reduced and employers would have more motivated labor instead of labor who is required to work.

Litigation costs would also be reduced since labor could simply quit and collect unemployment compenstead of becoming disgruntled by being required to work.

More people would be able to go to school to improve their skills and command a better wage.

Less people causing traffic delays by not having to commute.

Local area business would have more customer traffic since more people such as the homeless would have an income.

That is all I could think of for starters.

 

[Orangecat]

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?

I have no "gospel truth", just my own opinions. The funny thing to me is that you don't even realize what a silly, garbled broken record your posts are.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I understand that an employee can be faithful to at-will employment law with no legal or moral prejudice at law.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The law is employment at the will of either party.

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.

The process is clear.

Uh huh. Here sparky.. not that you really care..

II. Common Law Exceptions to the At-Will Presumption

Over the years, courts have carved out exceptions to the at-will presumption to mitigate its sometimes harsh consequences. The three major common law exceptions are public policy, implied contract, and implied covenant of good faith.

- More -

And there's much more.. Shall we now begin pretending this is Harvard vs Yale online?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The law is employment at the will of either party, regardless. A lack of equal protection of the law is unConstitutional since no State nor any Agency of any State has any authority to deny or disparage equal protection of the law for any benefits administered by the State.

 

[danielpalos]

for commodities and real property not for labor.

You cannot buy a person's labor then sell it on the market because it has no value until that labor is realized by an employer in the production of a product or service.

I agree to disagree. Temporary personnel services do something similar to what you claim cannot be done.

However, I can use competitive instead of getting stuck in an irrelevant argument if you have a problem with arbitrage.

 

[danielpalos]

What is the process? What you quoted says nothing about process, it merely establishes that employment may be terminated by either party and defines employment for a specified term. State the process that you think is so clear, and then explain why it has anything to do with the state deciding whether you qualify for UC or not.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

 

[danielpalos]

Collecting UC is a completely different matter.

Not without impairing due process in any at-will employment State. There is no other controlling law in an at-will employment States.