only if youre talking about the actual employment itself. if youre talking about an entirely seperate issue governed by its own statute you would be wildly incorrect.

you haven't missed a whole lot cari. dan tends to go round and round and round with little in the way of new things to say.

he doesn't grasp that unemployment insurance is a different issue than at will employment.

like i said dan, if employment is at will then it can be argued that NO one should be eligble for unemployment period. keep digging that hole.


and again its not concerning the actual employment. its concerning a seperate issue (unemployment benefits) that is predicated upon for cause statutes REGARDLESS of whether or not it was an at will or for cause situation.

seriously man this is easy stuff to understand. i know youre hung up on it cause its not what you want to hear but shit dude cmon enough already.

Unemployment insurance is similar to long/short term disability insurance (that's why it's called insurance!). You and your employer both contribute to unemployment insurance. If you work for someone who does not contribute (i.e. small business, self-employed), and you yourself do not contribute, you are not eligible.

Unemployment insurance is not welfare. You and your employer have both been paying for it all along. It's no different than if you have short-term disability insurance and break a leg. It also doesn't last forever. Your eligibilty only lasts as long as you've paid in. I don't know much more about it, I'm sure it's probably subsidize by the gov, but alot of insurances are, like flood and windstorm.

This is how it works in TX, is CA similar?

he posted the cali statute a page or so back. other than that i'd say ask the hippie

I'll read it, but you probably have to have a law degree to fully understand it. Does anyone understand it in layman's terms?

I never understood the TX statute either, until I had to share an office with HR at my previous employer.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE
SECTION 100-102



100. As a guide to the interpretation and application of this
division the public policy of this State is declared as follows:
Experience has shown that large numbers of the population of
California do not enjoy permanent employment by reason of which their
purchasing power is unstable. This is detrimental to the interests
of the people of California as a whole.
The benefit to all persons resulting from public and private
enterprise is realized in the final consumption of goods and
services. It is contrary to public policy to permit the supply of
consumption goods and services at prices which do not provide against
that harm to the population consequent upon periods of unemployment
of those who contribute to the production and distribution of such
goods and services.
Experience has shown that private charity and local relief cannot
alone prevent the effects of unemployment. Experience has shown that
if the State awaits the coming of excessive unemployment it can
neither create immediately the organization necessary to orderly,
economical and effective relief nor bear the financial burden of
relief without disrupting its whole system of ordinary revenues and
without jeopardizing its credit. (this is all filler. blah blah blah people need a handout)
The Legislature therefore declares that in its considered judgment
the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of the State
require the enactment of this measure under the police power of the
State, for the compulsory setting aside of funds to be used for a
system of unemployment insurance providing benefits for persons
unemployed through no fault of their own, and to reduce involuntary
unemployment and the suffering caused thereby to a minimum. (gov is putting money aside to pay people who are layed off ie unemployed through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN ie for cause)
It is the intent of the Legislature that unemployed persons
claiming unemployment insurance benefits shall be required to make
all reasonable effort to secure employment on their own behalf. (unemployment benefits collectors MUST TRY to get a job. eventually getting them a job. getting them off unemployment. ie the opposite of what dan wants)



101. This part is a part of a national plan of unemployment
reserves and social security, and is enacted for the purpose of
assisting in the stabilization of employment conditions. The
imposition of the tax herein imposed upon California industry alone,
without a corresponding tax being imposed upon all industry in the
United States, would, by the corresponding penalty upon California
industry, defeat the very purposes of this law as set forth in this
article. Therefore when existing federal legislation which provides
for a tax upon the payment of wages by employers in this State,
against which all or any part of the employer contributions required
under this part may be credited is repealed, amended, interpreted,
affected or otherwise changed in such manner that no portion of such
contributions may be thus credited, then upon the date of such
change, the provisions of this part requiring employer contributions
and providing for payment of unemployment compensation benefits shall
cease to be operative and any assets in the Unemployment Fund or
Unemployment Administration Fund shall in the discretion of the State
Treasurer be held in the then existing depositaries or otherwise in
the State Treasury (this basically says unemployment by the state is meant to supplement a larger program and should the larger program be nixed the state will too, and the remaining funds will be frozen until the treasurer decides what to do). In the case of the Unemployment Administration
Fund, such money may thereafter be dealt with by the State Treasurer
pursuant to the conditions of the grant thereof to the State by the
United States Government or agency thereof.



102. All the rights, privileges or immunities conferred by this
division or by acts deemed pursuant thereto shall exist subject to
the power of the Legislature to amend or repeal this division at any
time. (the legislature giveth and the legislature taketh away)

that help?

Yes, thank you.

Sounds alot like the TX one. You and your employer pay into it, and it's subsidized by the state, just like any other insurance that protects you against unforseen occurences.

If you do something to deserve to be fired, you are ineligible. If you are fired through no fault of your own, this will make sure you are able to live until you can find another job. It's an opportunity cost for the state, in the long run, it's alot better for them to subsidize your unemployment insurance to ensure you can continue to be a contributing member of society, than to have you crash and burn because you lost your job. That's why it works well with at-will employment.

right. what dan doesn't get is that while EMPLOYMENT is at will, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS are for cause only.

If at-will employment is the default form of employment in an at-will employment state, why would for-cause stipulations not be a form of liability to anyone who is hired at-will in such a state, ceteris paribus?

Are you claiming that organs of a state do not have to comply with existing US doctrines, which are recognized by the state, and state statutes enumerating at-will employment, with full faith and credit of public acts of such a state?

My question is, how does any organ of any state that recognizes at-will employment doctrine and has existing at-will employment statutes, find any justification or authority to require for-cause stipulations?

You are welcome to actually make the argument instead of simply claiming you have an argument.

Employment at-will is the inverse of unemployment at-will. If you can get hired at-will and get fired at-will, how can you claim that no one deserves unemployment compensation, at-will?

We are discussing this as a matter of equity and social justice. We already have the compelling interest of a War on Poverty. Unemployment compensation, that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws could solve poverty in our republic and be consistent with our Ninth Amendment.

California is an at-will employment state that recognizes at-will employment doctrine. 2922 of the labor code enumerates an at-will employment relationship if no for-cause employment is negotiated.

In other words, an employee is equally free to "quit, strike, or otherwise cease work", "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,"

It is my contention that for-cause stipulations constitute denial and disparagement (i.e. a liability) of the privilege and immunity to create and dissolve social contracts that result in employment, at-will, with no liability to either party (i.e. the employer or employee).

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at, but the way unemployment compensation works now will do nothing to solve poverty, it's purpose is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Unemployment compensation is an insurance that is paid into by employees and employers. Because we have an at-will system, that is why it has to be an insurance. If we did not have an at-will system, the state or the employer would be obligated to pay out of their own funds if an employee is terminated.

I know what you mean. We are also, already paying for a War on Poverty, that has nothing to do with actually solving poverty. We have recent (war) market based metrics for comparison and contrast.

Unemployment compensation based on at-will employment doctrine would be compatible with any state laws that recognize that doctrine.

In principle, anyone who is "naturally" unemployed could simply request unemployment compensation, at-will.

In this manner, poverty due to a simple lack of income could be due only to a lack of that form of human capital infrastructure. It could be viewed as embodying the ethics and morals of our social contract and Constitution by providing for the general welfare of the populace of the republic.