right, but thats a one way deal, from citizen to state. The state doesn't get to just dole out tax dollars to anyone and everyone. Thats wealth Redistribution and not only is it Unconstitutional, its an act of communism.
No thanks I'll pass

Actually, most states do have grants, loans, lotteries and subsidize unemployment from federal funds when necessary.

I only advocate complying with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. Anything else is simply red herring argumentation on your part. However, you are always welcome to present a argument for your point of view whenever you can muster up enough logic and reason for it.

loans get paid back. lotteries are gambles. grants are given only to certain people who meet specific criteria. unemployment as it is currently practiced applies only to people who meet a specific criteria and then it only lasts for a limited amount of time. What you are pushing does not in any way shape or form act like any of those.

You advocate unconstitutional and fiscally detrimental acts that are anything but compliant with current employment laws.

How is full compliance with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, unconstitutional?

We already have a war on poverty and welfare, as we currently know it. I only advocate reducing duplication in government services and solving for a natural unemployment with unemployment compensation, at-will. It could function as a permanent economic stimulus that generates local tax revenue on a more consistent basis. It could be viewed as trickle down for local governments.

For like the 200th time, because what you are pushing IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH AT WILL EMPLOYMENT. Its taking it over the mountains of the moon and down the valley of the shadow. In case you missed the reference thats from a ballad about find el dorado the lost city of gold. Which doesn't exist. just like your own pipe dream.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, must be in compliance or it would be of no benefit to potential labor market participants who establish social contracts that result in employment, under at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws.

Under at-will employment doctrine; a labor market participant can be fired or quit, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".

As a matter of equity, the employee should be allowed to pay fifty percent of the unemployment premium (tax), for market based metrics purposes.

it could in your fanciful dream world provide a benefit (note i'm not agreeing with you just running down your logic train) so it must comply with the law? dude where do you get your weed? seriously man thats some good shit if it can make you believe half the shit that comes out your mouth

Under at-will employment doctrine; a labor market participant can be fired or quit, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".

As a matter of equity, the employee should be allowed to pay fifty percent of the unemployment premium (tax), for market based metrics purposes.

If it is not compatible with at-will employment doctrine, it could be illegal or a form of for-cause employment.

The party claiming for-cause employment (stipulations) has the burden of proof, of proving for-cause employment.

or it could be unconstitutional and supremely idiotic.

The party claiming for-cause employment (stipulations) has the burden of proof, of proving for-cause employment.

sure they do. and that has NO BEARING on whether at will EMPLOYMENT deserves at will UNEMPLOYMENT. jeezus h christ on a motorbike you are thickheaded

If it is not for-cause employment, it must be employment at-will in any at-will employment state. Under at-will employment doctrine, any party can terminate a social contract that results in employment, for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all - with no liability to either party.

Requiring for-cause stipulations on an at-will employment relationship is a liability for the employee and more of a burden than it should be for the employer. The employee should be allowed to pay for half, as a matter of equity.

Congress, the SC, and everyone who's posted on here disagree. at will Unemployment is not an option anyone is willing to pursue but you.

This area of the law is still evolving as a form of modern civil rights.