What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why do poor communities exist in America?

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
6 month time limit on what? The employer is not asking for anything. They are still working and supporting themselves?

But let me see if I get this right, are you saying that the employer should be forced to close the business in 6 months after you voluntarily quit????
What if employers needed good cause to fire? Why does only labor need good cause to get unemployment compensation?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Yes they can. And the employee can get another job for more than 6 months. The 6 months is just the limit for getting a handout.
There is no work requirement in an at-will employment State. Equal protection of the laws means unemployment compensation is also at-will. Only illegals don't understand the concept.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
There is no work requirement in an at-will employment State. Equal protection of the laws means unemployment compensation is also at-will. Only illegals don't understand the concept.

No, there is no work requirement in at-will state's employment. But there is also no requirement in any law, statute or the US Constitution that says people able to work will be paid from the tax coffers.

I understand that there is a limit to the handouts under UC. There is no requirement to work, but not working means you don't get paid.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
What if employers needed good cause to fire? Why does only labor need good cause to get unemployment compensation?

Because, once again, you are confusing the employment law with drawing benefits from unemployment compensation.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, there is no work requirement in at-will state's employment. But there is also no requirement in any law, statute or the US Constitution that says people able to work will be paid from the tax coffers.

I understand that there is a limit to the handouts under UC. There is no requirement to work, but not working means you don't get paid.
Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation says you are simply wrong.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation says you are simply wrong.
Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation says you are simply wrong.

No, it does not. Show me any statute, law or portion of the US Constitution that says that people who are able to work will be paid, from the tax coffers, for not working.

Also, the "one month" criteria is for the definition of employment only. It does not mean it applies to every rule, law or program. If it did, you would only draw UC for a month.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
You are confusing equal protection of the laws with unequal protection of the laws.

No. The employment laws are not the same as the Unemployment Compensation.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, it does not. Show me any statute, law or portion of the US Constitution that says that people who are able to work will be paid, from the tax coffers, for not working.

Also, the "one month" criteria is for the definition of employment only. It does not mean it applies to every rule, law or program. If it did, you would only draw UC for a month.
Unequal protection of the laws is unConstitutional. It really is that simple. Yes, it does apply to any law enacted by the legislature.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
Unequal protection of the laws is unConstitutional. It really is that simple. Yes, it does apply to any law enacted by the legislature.

Actually, daniel, there really is no unequal protection. None.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
Unemployment compensation cannot be repugnant to at-will employment laws. We have an equal protection clause.

And the equal protection clause is not violated by current UC rules.

Everyone who does not quit a job or get fired for cause can draw unemployment compensation. The equal protection clause is satisfied by that.

You see, those who cannot draw UC have been eliminated from it by their own actions. Just like a felon is eliminated from certain things by their own actions. No, there was no criminal activity when you quit your job. But that still means they are not in violation of the equal protection clause if they do not offer you the UC benefit. Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. If you have no job because of something that is your fault you have no recourse through unemployment compensation. I would have thought you would figure that out by now.

And this is why I do not believe you have a case before the courts in CA. Someone would have explained that to you.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And the equal protection clause is not violated by current UC rules.

Everyone who does not quit a job or get fired for cause can draw unemployment compensation. The equal protection clause is satisfied by that.

You see, those who cannot draw UC have been eliminated from it by their own actions. Just like a felon is eliminated from certain things by their own actions. No, there was no criminal activity when you quit your job. But that still means they are not in violation of the equal protection clause if they do not offer you the UC benefit. Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. If you have no job because of something that is your fault you have no recourse through unemployment compensation. I would have thought you would figure that out by now.

And this is why I do not believe you have a case before the courts in CA. Someone would have explained that to you.
Yes, it has. Our legislators have no authority to enact public policies which abridge our privileges and immunities.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
Yes, there is. The Law is employment at the will of either party not just one or the State.

That is true. But that does not means that unemployment compensation is required to be offered to everyone. It is a benefit to workers who lost their job through not fault of their own. Not for those who violated employer's rules or who chose to quit a job.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
42,014
Reaction score
11,746
Points
2,040
Location
Atlanta
Yes, it has. Our legislators have no authority to enact public policies which abridge our privileges and immunities.

They haven't. The minute you break your employer's rules and get fired, or the minute you quit your job, you lose your qualifications to draw unemployment compensation. The equal protection clause does not apply because, in the eyes of the employment bureau you are not equal.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That is true. But that does not means that unemployment compensation is required to be offered to everyone. It is a benefit to workers who lost their job through not fault of their own. Not for those who violated employer's rules or who chose to quit a job.
Yes, it is. There is no lawful reason to abridge that privilege and immunity for only Labor as the least wealthy in our Republic.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
They haven't. The minute you break your employer's rules and get fired, or the minute you quit your job, you lose your qualifications to draw unemployment compensation. The equal protection clause does not apply because, in the eyes of the employment bureau you are not equal.
Employment is 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."
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Wrong.

We have equal protection of the law.
The law is employment at the will of either party for any public policy enacted by the legislature.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top