You can only ask for unemployment compensation if you and/or your employer have been paying into the unemployment compensation fund. That is what makes it insurance.

Someone unemployed at-will who is not paying into the insurace fund has no more claim to it than a person with no health insurance has a claim for Blue Cross to pay their hospital bill.

I understand what you are saying. I am arguing that unemployment compensation, that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws, could also function as a more cost effective social safety net, that could eventually reduce our tax burden and other public and private sector costs; while actually solving poverty, without a wasteful War on Poverty.

Then it will have to be changed. At that point it will no longer be unemployment insurance, it'll just be welfare under a new name.

Don't get me wrong, I think welfare has its place, but unemployment insurance was not designed to be used in that way.

no dude. they are TWO SEPERATE things. one governing employment that is at will. the other governs how the benefits for unemployment are allocated is specific to no fault unemployment. this implies that there is such a thing, as does the employment statute itself when it mentions good cause, bad cause or no cause. there is such a thing as bad cause or no cause so the statute stands to protect those people.

cause your own statute states that only those who were unemployed through no fault of their own are deserving of a limited timed benefit.
thats just as much sacred law as employment at will. jeesus h christ on a bicycle you are thickheaded

I understand what you are saying. I am arguing that unemployment compensation, that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws, could also function as a more cost effective social safety net, that could eventually reduce our tax burden and other public and private sector costs; while actually solving poverty, without a wasteful War on Poverty.

yes dan. i know. youve said this at least 30 times already. each time i tell you that its a bad idea. if you think california is in dire straights financially now, wait until no one is working because they don't "need to" cause they can get minimum wage sitting on the couch.
its a bad idea man.

This is the statute I am referring to. It defines employment in California. The unemployment insurance does not define employment, but only stipulations to that employment; implying for-cause employment in-fact. It is the burden trying to prove for-cause employment (stipulations) to prove that employment was for-cause and not at-will.

California is an at-will employment State. California recognizes at-will employment doctrine.

It's an old idea, it's called welfare.

People who are fired or laid off deserve their unemployment compensation because they have already contributed to it (I know you know this, just reiterating the point).

The Unemployment Insurance Code disagrees with you.

I'm curious as to why it's unemployment compensation you've picked. Why not let people start drawing their social security early if they don't want to work? It makes a whole lot more sense.

As a form of social safety net, poverty due to a simple lack of income can easily be ameliorated. Unemployment compensation, at-will, could conform to at-will employment doctrine and existing State at-will employment laws.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, complements employment at-will. And provides a basis for metrics in the market for labor. Unemployment compensation, at-will, could be as simple to administer as minimum wage laws, and could be considered a truer form of minimum wage that pays people to stay out of poverty, for the general welfare of the State.

Unemployment compensation at-will, could simulate full employment of resources in the market for labor and enable a more developed economy to better further human potential, at lower cost to the individual consumer of Statism.

it also states that their is such a thing as good cause, bad cause, or no cause and that the employee is not liable for it (meaning they don't have to pay money to leave).

however the unemployment statute states that only people fired for bad cause or no cause are eligible. period. end of story. thanks for playing

wow. it says here that being poor is bad. i never knew that.


you missed some parts. like the whole law mostly. you know the part where it mentions that only for bad cause and no cause get the benefits.

nice selective argument bud.

I am quibbling about the "liability" portion. It could be viewed as analogous to no-fault insurance. Under no-fault liability, there is no basis for just-cause stipulations since they imply that a for-cause employment relationship exists. It is up to the party claiming for-cause employment (stipulations) to prove that for-cause employment existed between both parties.