I only agree with you to the extent that any given employment relationship is for-cause employment and not at-will employment.

Anyone discharged from at-will employment could simply claim they were "naturally" unemployed.

youre extending the definition to suit your own purposes. it means they don't have to pay to quit. thats all.

I only agree with you to the extent that any given employment relationship is for-cause employment and not at-will employment.

It means no liability from for-cause stipulations due to an at-will employment relationship.

Usually, one party has to prove for-cause employment existed, for it to be implied-in-fact.

If the employment was at-will, how is any organ of the State, justified being in violation of existing State statutes (e.g. 2922 of the labor code), concerning the presumed form of employment, baring anything to the contrary?

It could be viewed as a form of States' right, to provide for its general welfare; and request and require that the general government of the Union, pay for the Debts of those States that are providing for their own, and several welfare.

It would be a social safety net, but it would not be welfare as we currently know it, since it would comply with at-will employment doctrine and existing at-will employment laws.

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

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

It could be viewed as a privilege and immunity arising from our Ninth Amendment.

"Naturally unemployed",you just mean lazy. Will this diagnosis of lazy need a doctor's note, or can anyone claim it.

because it specifies that thats how the statute is run dude. because they are two seperate issues, they are able to be governed by two seperate standards.

One of those two double standards is incorrect under at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Requiring for-cause stipulations is contradictory to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Therefore, only for-cause employment relationships are regulated under that code. Employment at-will, has no basis for such regulation because there is no liability to either party for terminating that agreement with proper notice.

see youre blatently incorrect here. its only contradictory if they both govern EMPLOYMENT. since UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS is a seperate thing it can be governed by a different standard. BECAUSE THEY AREN"T THE SAME ISSUE.
one deals with employment at will, one deals with temporary benefits assigned to someone who is fired "through no fault of their own."

seriously dude. game over.

Now you're getting it! Because there is no liability with at-will employment, that is why it is an insurance that you pay into in case you need to collect the money back later. If there was a liability, there would be no insurance needed because the responsible party would be required to pay you out of pocket. See how easy that was?

2922 of the labor code is the official Weight and Measure of any given employment relationship in California. It is the default which is assumed, especially if there is no evidence or contract to the contrary.

Who pays into UI is a State matter. In California, only the employer pays the UI tax.

As a matter of equity, the employee should be allowed to pay half of the cost and market based metric.

A more accurate analogy to forms of insurance would be no-fault insurance. Under no-fault insurance each individual is responsible for their own actions.

However, the point is that most States recognize at-will employment and have state at-will employment laws.

Any denial and disparagement of the privilege and immunity to create and dissolve social contracts that result in employment, at-will, is a liability when it comes to unemployment compensation.

The reason for this is that both the employer and employee both exercised their Ninth Amendment privilege and immunity to create an employment relationship that was at-will.

Most EDD offices require for-cause stipulations without having to prove for-cause employment. This is a violation of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

There is no basis for any EDD office to require for-cause stipulations in any at-will employment State. All employment is presumed to be at-will in any at-will employment State. The party claiming for-cause employment (stipulations) has the burden of proof that such an employment relationship existed.

yes all employment is. we aren't talking about employment though.
were talking about collecting unemployment benefits. two different things. governed by two different statutes

You keep missing the point. It is about the type of employment relationship that would otherwise qualify a labor market participant for unemployment compensation.

Under at-will employment doctrine, a labor market participant can quit or be fired, at-will; without any liability of for-cause stipulations.

Why should EDD rules be applicable to former at-will employees, if EDD presumes that the employment was for-cause? Those rules should only apply to individuals who have established a for-cause employment relationship.

As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

except at will employment deals strictly with hiring and firing, and signing on and quitting. thats it. it has nothing to do with unemployment benefits, as evidenced by the fact that unemployment benefits are governed by a seperate statute that is SPECIFICALLY FOR CAUSE

As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

I still don't understand your argument since it doesn't make any sense to me. For the sake of argument, let's create a hypothetical scenario to explore the concept.

If I am an employee, and you hire me at-will, and then fire me at-will; why would EDD claim that the employment relationship was for-cause, and create a liability for me (i.e. a lack of unemployment compensation in money based markets).

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).