Theory on 'Official Poverty' Relating to Racism - Page 25 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

reality · #**361** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In the case of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, I feel that individuals who incur any for-cause liability are being denied and disparaged their statutory rights if both market participants agree that employment was at-will. Further, even the States are denied and disparaged in their privilege and immunity to "impair in the Obligation of Contracts".

you are of course entitled to your incorrect opinion.

employment laws, and laws governing unemployment benefits are two different animals.

danielpalos · #**362** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Any laws pursuant to a State Constitution, are the supreme law of that State. 2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

Pursuant to what authority, do any laws that are repugnant to state statutes, become lawful?

Administrative justice does not preempt civil justice.

Quote:

In general, judicial review of formal agency adjudication is limited to questions of law, and administrative findings of fact are binding on the courts unless unsupported by substantial evidence.

Questions of law include allegations that constitutional or statutory rights have been denied, failure to observe required procedures, and the agency's scope of authority.

What justification is there for for-cause stipulations in any at-will employment state?

Quote:

Some employees enter into employment relationships by signing employment contracts, although the number of employees in general who have such contracts is relatively small. Company executives, highly paid employees, and highly skilled employees are examples of those who may receive written employment agreements. These contracts contain the terms of employment, including salaries, the length of the employment contract, provisions regarding early termination, and so forth.

An employee who has a written contract with his or her employer must first prove the existence of the contract. Once the employee has proven this, then the employee must prove that the employer has breached the agreement. Whether an employer has breached a contract depends on the terms of the agreement itself. In some instances, a contract may restrict an employer from terminating an employee except for certain reasons or by following certain procedures. The employee must prove that the employer breached the agreement in order to recover.

Source: United States At Will Employment Law Summary and Law Digest

reality · #**363** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Any laws pursuant to a State Constitution, are the supreme law of that State. 2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

Pursuant to what authority, do any laws that are repugnant to state statutes, become lawful?

Administrative justice does not preempt civil justice.

What justification is there for for-cause stipulations in any at-will employment state?

seriously man you are thick as shit.

just like there is a code of law for employment, there is another law governing unemployment benefits. seriously, man how can you miss that?

danielpalos · #**364** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

It defines the (default) type of relationship, if there is no written or implied contract specifying for-cause employment; in an at-will employment state.

How is it, that any organ of a State, can find for-cause stipulations, without having to prove for-cause employment?

reality · #**365** (**permalink**) 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

2922 of the labor code is such a law pursuant to the Constitution of the State.

It defines the (default) type of relationship, if there is no written or implied contract specifying for-cause employment; in an at-will employment state.

How is it, that any organ of a State, can find for-cause stipulations, without having to prove for-cause employment?

that law governs employment. theres another one that governs how you get unemployment benefits. seriously dude this is like the 5th time ive told you this.

danielpalos · #**366** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

How does that work in an at-will employment state? I can understand how that would work in for-cause employment state, where all employment is assumed to be for-cause unless specified otherwise.

How is it, that any organ of a State, can find for-cause stipulations, without having to prove for-cause employment? All employment, in an at-will employment state is assumed to be at-will, unless it specified otherwise in an employment contract.

Since, anyone can quit or be fired at-will, why should anyone need any for-cause criteria, in order to qualify for unemployment compensation pursuant to any employment that was terminated at-will, in an at-will employment state?

In other words, if someone can legally quit or get fired at-will, how can someone be denied or disparaged in their economic-equity privileges and immunities if they were being lawful in being fired or quitting?

reality · #**367** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

How does that work in an at-will employment state? I can understand how that would work in for-cause employment state, where all employment is assumed to be for-cause unless specified otherwise.

How is it, that any organ of a State, can find for-cause stipulations, without having to prove for-cause employment? All employment, in an at-will employment state is assumed to be at-will, unless it specified otherwise in an employment contract.

Since, anyone can quit or be fired at-will, why should anyone need any for-cause criteria, in order to qualify for unemployment compensation pursuant to any employment that was terminated at-will, in an at-will employment state?

In other words, if someone can legally quit or get fired at-will, how can someone be denied or disparaged in their economic-equity privileges and immunities if they were being lawful in being fired or quitting?

idk you live in cali, you tell me.

danielpalos · #**368** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

That is the point I am arguing about. But, considering that usually no one applying for unemployment compensation at-will, can afford to litigate, it isn't surprising that this area of the law is lagging and can be considered underdeveloped as a form of human capital infrastructure and social safety net; especially in a political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

We already have a compelling interest of a War on Poverty. Poverty can be eliminated through unemployment compensation for an income that would other be obtained in labor market with more efficient markets.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, complies with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

As a form of economic stimulus, it could reduce the volatility of the business cycle while increasing the circulation and velocity of money; which would also benefit local governments.

reality · #**369** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

That is the point I am arguing about. But, considering that usually no one applying for unemployment compensation at-will, can afford to litigate, it isn't surprising that this area of the law is lagging and can be considered underdeveloped as a form of human capital infrastructure and social safety net; especially in a political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

We already have a compelling interest of a War on Poverty. Poverty can be eliminated through unemployment compensation for an income that would other be obtained in labor market with more efficient markets.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, complies with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

As a form of economic stimulus, it could reduce the volatility of the business cycle while increasing the circulation and velocity of money; which would also benefit local governments.

that shits weak. the aclu eats that sort of shit for breakfast FOR FREE

danielpalos · #**370** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

I find it surprising that this issue is still with us, even if this area of the law is still evolving.

Quote:

Thirty-seven U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment.[9] Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists."[9] Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.

Quote:

The implied-contract theory to circumvent at will employment must be treated with caution. In 2006, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in Matagorda County Hospital District, Petitioner v Christine Burwell, Respondent,[11] held that a provision in an employee handbook stating that dismissal may be for cause, and requiring employee records to specify the reason for termination, did not modify an employee's at-will employment. The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest Court, also rejected the implied-contract theory to circumvent employment at will. In Anthony Lobosco, Appellant v New York Telephone Company/NYNEX, Respondent [12], the court restated the prevailing rule that an employee could not maintain an action for wrongful discharge where state law recognized neither the tort of wrongful discharge, nor exceptions for firings that violate public policy, and an employee's explicit employee handbook disclaimer preserved the at-will employment relationship.

Source: At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may be that at-will employment doctrine has been modified with so many exceptions due to a perceived lack of equity for the employee.

We would need fewer exceptions to the rule with unemployment compensation, at-will; and be truer to our Ninth Amendment concerning individual liberty and social contracts that result in employment, at the will of the both parties.

reality · #**371** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I find it surprising that this issue is still with us, even if this area of the law is still evolving.

It may be that at-will employment doctrine has been modified with so many exceptions due to a perceived lack of equity for the employee.

We would need fewer exceptions to the rule with unemployment compensation, at-will; and be truer to our Ninth Amendment concerning individual liberty and social contracts that result in employment, at the will of the both parties.

listen carefully: NO. no one is going to pay anyone to do jack shit all day. youre living in fantasyland danny

danielpalos · #**372** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

That's not the point. It is about being moral and ethical enough to obey laws pursuant to our state constitutions. Otherwise, how can we be moral and ethical in our admonishment of less fortunate people who also don't obey all lawful laws.

Morals are supposed to be good for something.

Simply being moral and ethical to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws would improve the "standard of living" of our current (moral) infrastructure. What you advocate could be considered a form of generational theft of better morals and ethics, and their potential benefit to our immortal souls.

Our Constitution specifically enumerates providing for the general Welfare, or public good, of the republic. By no latitude of construction can it be inferred to provide for the general badfare or public bad.

Maintaining poverty, for "free" is not the same as providing for the general welfare of our republic.

reality · #**373** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

That's not the point. It is about being moral and ethical enough to obey laws pursuant to our state constitutions. Otherwise, how can we be moral and ethical in our admonishment of less fortunate people who also don't obey all lawful laws.

Morals are supposed to be good for something.

Simply being moral and ethical to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws would improve the "standard of living" of our current (moral) infrastructure. What you advocate could be considered a form of generational theft of better morals and ethics, and their potential benefit to our immortal souls.

Our Constitution specifically enumerates providing for the general Welfare, or public good, of the republic. By no latitude of construction can it be inferred to provide for the general badfare or public bad.

Maintaining poverty, for "free" is not the same as providing for the general welfare of our republic.

those are YOUR morals. Not anyone elses. everyone else is fine with not paying dumbasses to sit on the couch all day.

which is just what would happen if you payed people to do nothing. thank you for proving my point.

danielpalos · #**374** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

Are you claiming that forms of economic inequality are preferable, in a political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable, to a more efficient economy where poverty due to a lack of income is factored for?

As a form inequality that is reflected more heavily upon minorities, do you even make any claim that equality a social goal? Why have a War on Poverty, in our form of poltical-economy, if poverty is a good thing when not practiced for religious purposes?

reality · #**375** (**permalink**) 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Are you claiming that forms of economic inequality are preferable, in a political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable, to a more efficient economy where poverty due to a lack of income is factored for?

As a form inequality that is reflected more heavily upon minorities, do you even make any claim that equality a social goal? Why have a War on Poverty, in our form of poltical-economy, if poverty is a good thing when not practiced for religious purposes?

the first one is capitalism. the second one is socialism bordering on communism. no thank you.

no its not. everyone has the same rights and legal opportunities. if they want money they should go out and make some.
again I DON"T WANT THE WAR ON POVERTY SO USING IT AS AN EXCUSE IS IRRELEVANT AND IRRITATING. MOVE ON.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode