Why should any new laws be needed? In my view, this is another reason we need to simplify our Government and lower our tax burden by reducing the amount of unnecessary socialism in our political-economy. That doctrine is compatible with our Ninth Amendment, our Tenth Amendment, and most state at-will employment laws.

This could be a more cost effective implementation of welfare as a form of public policy, but one that actually corrects an inefficiency in the market for labor and eliminates poverty.

That is a big heaping turd of unnecessary socialism. And it also says nothing in there about getting unemployment indefinetly and for no good reason. If you quit you DON"T GET UNEMPLOYMENT. You have to be FIRED to get Unemployment. It also doesn't last forever. To change that youd have to CHANGE the law. Good luck with that.
And again it grants the feds more power than they already have. I'm not comfortable with that.

Why should there be any for-cause stipulations in an at-will employment state?

The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim of for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.

In principle, anyone can simply claim at-will employment termination or unemployment, at-will with proper notice, with no (for-cause) liability for either market participant.

Simplifying our public policy regarding poverty could free resources for other public sector business ventures or can can be used to reduce our tax burden and other public and private sector costs.

youre free to quit strike or cease work. ok. that does NOT translate into heres a bunch of free money. If you quit you don't get unemployment in our system. Plain and simple. Good day

That's the point about equal protection of the laws regarding at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

On what basis do you deny and disparage that privilege and immunity, when recourse to an income is already extended to artificial persons?

We already have the compelling public policy interest of a War on Poverty.

If you are fired (not for incompetence, or failing a drug test or insubordination, but through no fault of your own ie lay offs) you get unemployment. Its not your fault. If you quit its totally your fault and you deserve nothing special to keep you on your feet. If you terminate your employment you must suffer the consequences.
Unemployment isn't a right dude. Its also not taken care of at the federal level, but at the state level.

That is the point I am referring to. It is about simply being ethical and moral enough to actually solve poverty by being compliant with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. Such morals and ethics could engender greater respect for the law.

How do you find any justification for, for-cause employment stipulations without proving for-cause employment, in any at-will employment state?


In other words, the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all", and be compliant with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

and i'm telling you i'm not debating that. What i'm debating is how it turns from hiring and firing and quitting and striking to free money for life because you didn't feel like working anymore.
That dog won't hunt.

Are you suggesting a double-standard? Why would we want that inequality in the application of the law, under our form of federal statism; especially, if it could lower our tax burden by the cost of a War on Poverty, by actually solving poverty in our republic with existing unemployment compensation infrastructure.

WHAT DOUBLE STANDARD?

its equal. You can quit, and they can fire you. equal.

If anything its a double standard in favor of the employee. If they fire you for something other than incompetence or a reprimand, if they lay you off THEY have to pay your unemployment benefits. THEY being the employer.

You don't get shit if you quit.

That is not the equal part I am referring to under at-will employment doctrine. The equal part should be, being able to quit and still get unemployment compensation, under at-will employment doctrine.

There is no reason for any liability for any party under at-will employment doctrine since anyone can be fired or quit; "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".

How do you find any justification for, for-cause employment stipulations without proving for-cause employment, in any at-will employment state?

As a matter of equity, the employee should be allowed to pay fifty percent of any unemployment tax.

if you terminate your own employment you don't deserve unemployment. if youre fired you get it. whats so difficult to understand here?

Why do you feel at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws should be applied unequally? What compelling interest is there in perpetuating inequality that engenders a poverty money, in any given money-based market; and specifically, our own money-based, mixed-market, political-economy?

Public policy that engenders poverty could be considered unholy and immoral to the "institution" of money-based markets; and our secular, mixed-market political-economy.

Public policy that engenders poverty could also be considered less ethical, from a social justice perspective, since we are already paying for poverty elimination, and not getting what we are already paying for while engendering a perceived immorality of inequality in the application of our secular laws (commandments).

Consistent application of the laws could enable people of morals to recognize that "moral"; and it could have an effect of reducing racism through reductions in any form of inequalities related to equal protection of the law; and our own mixed-market political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable, and a form of Capitalism.

Are you also against reducing perceived racism as another reason to eliminate official poverty in our republic?

its not being applied unequally.

Inequality in income exists. It will always exist in any capitalist (see functioning) society. there are those with money, and those without it. It is not the job of those with money to give that money to those without. It is the job of those without (if they so choose) to EARN the money themselves through hard labor, and conniving business practices like everyone else.

I would agree with you if we lived in a more Capitalist and third world economy. We don't have a Capitalist or third world economy for a reason; socialism, its advances in forms of statism and its role in more developed political-economies.

Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power delegated to the general government of the Union.

There is no reason for any liability for either the employee or the employer, under at-will employment doctrine since an employee can be fired or quit; "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".

My viewpoint conforms to the ideals embodied by our Founding Fathers.