It is in our social contract and Constitution. As a form of social justice, equal protection of the laws is a fundamental principle, and is embodied in the due process clause.

its not. it doesn't say anything in there about you confiscating my property in the form of inordinately high taxes to give to the poor. i don't see that shit anywhere in there. swing an a miss. try again slugger

We already have a War on Poverty.

If it isn't accomplished by our elected representatives to government, it could be accomplished by the courts.

California is an at-will employment state.

the courts lack that power. all they do is enforce laws.


now i still don't see anywhere in there anything about unemployment at will. looks like thats because *gasp* its a bad idea.

hell yall are about to go bankrupt. maybe its a bad idea to emulate you.

It follows from at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. In principle, the party claiming for-cause employment stipulations should also bear the burden of proof of such an employment contract.

If employment in California is at-will, how can any agency require for-cause stipulations in any employment related decision?

dude you just posted the statute. read it and learn something.


they are two different things (being employed and receiving unemployment) for the specific reason of stopping hippies like you with this retarded pipe dream.

It seems to me, that one is dependent upon the other in at any given at-will employment state. If the employment was at-will and was terminated at-will; there should be no basis for just-cause (for-cause) stipulations by any other organ of the state.

On what basis does any organ of the state justify for-cause (just-cause) stipulations if the employment is at-will?

This area of the law is still evolving, with some of the opposing viewpoint wanting to abolish at-will employment and replace it with contract employment (for-cause).

I am of the opinion that at-will employment is protected by our Ninth Amendment concerning social contracts that result in employment. Unemployment compensation, at-will, could solve poverty in our republic.

they aren't. employment is different than receiving unemployment benefits.

one is governed by an at will doctrine. the other is for cause. why? because they are two seperate issues. getting a job. and being compensated for unfairly losing one.

you could actually make the argument that since its at will NO ONE deserves unemployment at all. that is if you go by your logic.

How can that be, if they are predicated upon current employment statutes in any given state? By what latitude of construction, does any organ of an at-will employment state, find any rationale for justifying for-cause employment stipulations, without having to prove for-cause employment, in the same manner that a former employee would have to prove that type of employment under common law of an at-will employment state? If the state can simply resort to hypocrisy with the full faith and credit of public acts, why should any individual be more moral than that form of moral tradition and precedent?

Why would someone not qualify for unemployment compensation at-will, in any at-will employment state?

California recognizes at-will employment doctrine and has an at-will employment statute, as a form of state law. The unemployment insurance code denying and disparaging equal protection of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, would be more consistent in its reasoning if California were a for-cause employment state.

they aren't. thats WHY they have their own statute. because theyre two different things. which is why your state doesn't have at will unemployment. and neither do any others.
well that and the fact that its stupid. but don't let that stop you

That is the point of my argument, if were you were paying attention.

Both laws are contradictory and therefore, both cannot be correct.

California recognizes at-will employment doctrine and has an at-will employment statute (labor code 2922).

The California legislature may not have been fully cognizant of at-will employment doctrine when they created the unemployment insurance code.

As a social safety net, unemployment compensation; that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws is much more efficient than our current social safety net infrastructure; and is a form of market based metric.

they aren't contradictory. you can quit or get a job at will. that means you aren't a serf who MUST stay at such and such a job forever. thats all that means.
unemployment insurance is a whole different animal.

Unemployment insurance should be more compatible with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

California is an at-will employment state that recognizes at-will employment doctrine.

Simply requiring for-cause stipulations could be considered a violation of that doctrine and those state laws.

I have not read this entire thread, so I hope that I am not jumping in and not understanding what is going on.

Texas, where I live, is also an at-will employment state. If you are an at-will employee, then you work for an at-will employer. As the employee, you can quit whenever you like. As long as you are not breaking any laws, as the employer you can fire someone whenever you like.

The state has employment insurance to make sure the employee doesn't become destitute because the employer decided to let them go. If the employer can demonstrate the actions of the employee forced them to fire them, then the employee is not eligible for the insurance.

If the employment is at-will; and in full compliance with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, why should any organ of that same state require just-cause (for-cause) employment stipulations?