hows it unequal? if you fire someone you pay the unemployment (as the employer) and the employee recieves that unemployment for the untimely termination of their employment.

you can quit whenever you want for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. but then thats not UNTIMELY termination as you planned it. therfore you are not entitled to shit.

nice and equal

It depends on what you consider equality to be. In principle, the public sector should be required to prove for-cause employment, in any at-will employment state.

The burden of proof is always on the party claiming for-cause (implied or expressed) employment stipulations.

so now we've gone from at will employment, to for cause.

It doesn't matter anyway because for cause agreements are accepted by the employee as a term of employment. They agree to do X Y and Z etc etc and they are assured they maintain their employment. If they fail to do X Y or Z they are allowed to be terminated. Again thats equal.

You're just flailing about like a landed fish.

Is it too complicated for you? Do you want me to simplify it?

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?

odd, the aclu, supreme court, and the legislatures seem to disagree with you. Seeing as how we have at will employment, and unemployment compensation. strange huh?

I am not sure what you are referring to. This area of the law is still evolving as a form of civil rights.

We have a Ninth Amendment that protects an individual's privilege and immunity to create or dissolve social contracts that result in employment, at-will.

California code number 2922 specifically enumerates that: "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."

Thus, there is no legal reason for any liability for any party under at-will employment doctrine since any employee can be fired or quit; "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all". Therefore, unemployment compensation that complies with at-will employment doctrine can be said to be unemployment compensation, at-will.

again, no it can't. you may quit at will. you may be fired at will (provided its not because of illegal discriminatory practices). if youre fired you are eligible for unemployment because THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN your employment was terminated. If you terminate yourself IE QUIT you don't get shit.


Hey youre from california, you like rhyming statements to prove things, ala Johnny Cockrain (SP?) and OJ. If you quit you don't get shit. There, easy to understand huh?

I think you may be referring to administrative law for bureaucracies. I can understand how the current status quo was reached; but, California code number 2922 specifically enumerates that: "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."

Lack of full recognition of at-will employment doctrine is the issue.

However, I think better employment of resources is a self-evident truth since such a public policy would emulate full employment of resources in the market for labor. Zero percent official unemployment should be considered normal and a "natural" unemployment rate should be considered the inefficiency or friction rate in the market for labor.

I was cracking wise using a pop culture reference.

So an employment may be terminated at the will of either party big deal. That does not lead to at will unemployment compensation. That means you can quit, it does not entitle you to compensation. Also i don't think we really want the rest of the nation to emulate california. what with the whole insolvency debacle..

Why should there be any for-cause liability for either party when ending a social contract that results in employment, under at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws?

California code number 2922 specifically enumerates that: "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."

If it is only a matter of equity, allowing the employee to pay fifty percent of the unemployment tax could be considered fair.

i find giving away money to people who aren't doing anything to be criminal and also rather unfair.

Why do you think that if you could, hypothetically, apply for unemployment at-will, with full compliance with at-will employment doctrine? What would you do with recourse to an income that is above the official poverty rate? Would you also, do nothing? In my opinion, anyone can be pursuing Happiness, as enumerated in our Constitution.

If it is only a matter of equity, allowing the employee to pay fifty percent of the unemployment tax could be considered fair.

Your argument would only apply to those individuals who never provided labor input to the economy. Those individuals would likely be the best candidates for a social safety net. I don't mind paying taxes on legal recreational drugs like alcohol, tobacco or pot if it will help provide for the general welfare of the populace of our State.

However, since you object, Hoover Dam could be paying your share of that money that is intended to help real persons in poverty, for you.

With more public sector means of production, we could be lowering our tax burden such that we could end direct and invasive income taxation.

they can pursue happiness on their own dime. Not mine or my tax dollars.
The money from public sector projects would take away from the private sector which provides the main source of income for most people. I'm not into government as a corporation. Its too much like communism.
No thank you.

LMAO, it is people like you who have destroyed the once Golden state. Taxes don't pay for the general welfare, they pay for the welfare state, and the poverty pimps that run it....get a clue.

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis