Why do poor communities exist in America?

[danielpalos]

No they wouldn't. Every job I have ever quit without notice was to take another, better, job.

The fact is, since you have been shown that there are laws that do not follow the at-will employment description, your claims that the UC laws violate the equal protection clause are simply false. There is nothing that says all labor laws have to follow at-will employment descriptions, and there are obvious examples where they do not, you have no argument.

Also, the Unemployment Compensation is jointly managed by the federal gov't and the individual states.

Only your ignorance is false. The Law is clear. Only right-wingers are just plain hypocrites about being Legal to the Law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only your ignorance is false. The Law is clear. Only right-wingers are just plain hypocrites about being Legal to the Law.

If that is true, why are employers not allowed to fire whistleblowers?

 

[danielpalos]

If that is true, why are employers not allowed to fire whistleblowers?

During the commission of a crime? Mens rea applies.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Show us the link, full of fallacy right-winger.

there are no links to things which do not exist you fascist liar

 

[danielpalos]

there are no links to things which do not exist you fascist liar

You have no morals or truth, Right-Winger. StewNazis have more substantial arguments.

 

[WinterBorn]

During the commission of a crime? Mens rea applies.

"mens rea
[menz ˈrēə]
NOUN
law
the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.Compare with actus reus.
"a mistaken belief in consent meant that the defendant lacked mens rea""


The whistleblower is not part of the crime. And mens rea has nothing to do with not being able to fire the whistleblower.

The False Claims Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are what protects whistleblowers from being fired for informing on illegal acts by companies.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You have no morals or truth, Right-Winger. StewNazis have more substantial arguments.

I have far more of both than you fascist.

I and others have proven your posts to be fallaciesw but neing a moral;ly bankrupt pig yuou perssist with lies thinking you will save face.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have far more of both than you fascist.

I and others have proven your posts to be fallaciesw but neing a moral;ly bankrupt pig yuou perssist with lies thinking you will save face.

daniel rarely answers questions. He also rarely posts links to prove his claims.

And I have never seen him admit when he is wrong, even if he is proven to be wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

"mens rea
[menz ˈrēə]
NOUN
law
the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.Compare with actus reus.
"a mistaken belief in consent meant that the defendant lacked mens rea""


The whistleblower is not part of the crime. And mens rea has nothing to do with not being able to fire the whistleblower.

The False Claims Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are what protects whistleblowers from being fired for informing on illegal acts by companies.

I never said they were. You are simply begging the question like any false witness bearer would.

 

[danielpalos]

I have far more of both than you fascist.

I and others have proven your posts to be fallaciesw but neing a moral;ly bankrupt pig yuou perssist with lies thinking you will save face.

I don't believe hypocrites.

 

[danielpalos]

daniel rarely answers questions. He also rarely posts links to prove his claims.

And I have never seen him admit when he is wrong, even if he is proven to be wrong.

lol. Because you have nothing but fallacy. Only hypocrites do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't believe hypocrites.

Hypocrites? I have shown you that there are laws that prevent employers from being able to fire people at will. Both as whistleblowers and employees under contract. Your entire premise is that no law can change the work at-will employment laws that say employers can terminate someone at will.

So you have been proven to be wrong. I have posted nothing that shows me to be a hypocrite. But even if I had, my proof would still stand, since it is the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Hypocrites? I have shown you that there are laws that prevent employers from being able to fire people at will. Both as whistleblowers and employees under contract. Your entire premise is that no law can change the work at-will employment laws that say employers can terminate someone at will.

So you have been proven to be wrong. I have posted nothing that shows me to be a hypocrite. But even if I had, my proof would still stand, since it is the law.

We were discussing how the law would work with equal protection not how it does work currently. That is why I can't take you seriously in our arguments; you simply make stuff up and insist you have the "gospel Truth". Only hypocrites do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

We were discussing how the law would work with equal protection not how it does work currently. That is why I can't take you seriously in our arguments; you simply make stuff up and insist you have the "gospel Truth". Only hypocrites do that.

No, there is no violation of the equal protection clause. Both from the standpoint of there being laws that do not follow the at-will and from the standpoint of UC not violating the at-will employment law.

 

[danielpalos]

No, there is no violation of the equal protection clause. Both from the standpoint of there being laws that do not follow the at-will and from the standpoint of UC not violating the at-will employment law.

Simply enacting for-cause legislation in an at-will employment State abridges at-will employment privileges and immunities with such legislative Acts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simply enacting for-cause legislation in an at-will employment State abridges at-will employment privileges and immunities with such legislative Acts.

No, it does not. Your privileges are exactly the same. Your immunities are exactly the same.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it does not. Your privileges are exactly the same. Your immunities are exactly the same.

Nope. For-cause criteria abridges at-will employment law. It is a self-evident truth.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nope. For-cause criteria abridges at-will employment law. It is a self-evident truth.

No, it does not.

If it is self-evident, tell us what at-will employment privilege or right does not exist because of the current UC rules and laws?

Employees are still about to quit, strike or otherwise cease working at will. Employers are still able to fire employees for any reason or no reason (with some notable exceptions).

Tell us what privileges are removed from at-will employment by the current UC laws.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it does not.

If it is self-evident, tell us what at-will employment privilege or right does not exist because of the current UC rules and laws?

Employees are still about to quit, strike or otherwise cease working at will. Employers are still able to fire employees for any reason or no reason (with some notable exceptions).

Tell us what privileges are removed from at-will employment by the current UC laws.

Only if you ignore the law. Any public policy that abridges at-will employment laws is unConstitutional and should be nullified at every opportunity.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you ignore the law. Any public policy that abridges at-will employment laws is unConstitutional and should be nullified at every opportunity.

You keep saying that UC abridges at-will employment laws. But you have yet to provide a single example of a single abridgement of the at-will employment laws.

What is abridged by the current UC laws?