Why do poor communities exist in America?

[danielpalos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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

You are confusing equal protection of the laws with unequal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

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]

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]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Unemployment compensation cannot be repugnant to at-will employment laws. We have an equal protection clause.

 

[WinterBorn]

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]

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]

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

Yes, there is. The Law is employment at the will of either party not just one or the State.

 

[danielpalos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is your appeal to ignorance. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement. Means tested welfare has nothing to do with unemployment compensation.

Wrong.

We have equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.