It only matters if the employment was for-cause, since under at-will employment neither party has any liability for ending that relationship, at-will.

The point is that it is a matter of which laws are more supreme.

The Unemployment Insurance Code can be considered less supreme than the Labor Code, because California recognizes at-will employment doctrine and a state statute specifically enumerates the type of employment relationship unless it can be proved otherwise; and is supported by the Ninth Amendment and Section 10 of our federal Constitution denying and disparaging a State's right to impair in the obligation of contracts.

I have written my congressionals. The current holdup is not wanting to be perceived as being for any increase in taxes.

I feel that as a matter of equity, the employee should be allowed to pay half of the unemployment tax since it would also serve as a form of market based metrics for the private sector.

The employer would realize a potential savings and be able to bear true witness to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws concerning any liability.

The employee would have more of a basis, in equity, for the privilege and immunity of full recourse to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

How is requiring for-cause employment stipulations by any organ of an at-will employment State, compatible with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws?

The goal, in case you forgot, is that we are already paying for a War on Poverty that will never solve for poverty. Unemployment compensation, at-will, solves for a poverty of income in our money-based, mixed-market, political-economy.

Unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws can solve official poverty in our republic when due to a simple lack of income, simulate full employment of resources in the market for labor, and "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

the state statute for unemployment benefits has nothing to do with being employed. that is always at will. the receiving of benefits only applies in very specific cases to avoid precisely what you suggest.

dan how many times have i told you that trying to use the "war on poverty" against me is not an effective tactic, since i think it needs to be abolished?

your plan is not only unconstitutional, but it would bankrupt this nation. no thanks.

Your argument is specious at best, because our current regime requires an employment relationship for recourse to unemployment compensation after discharge.

The type of employment relationship that is assumed is specified in the labor code (2922); unless it can be proven otherwise.

Since employment is assumed to be at-will, and I cannot prove it was for-cause; how is any organ of the State empowered to impair in the obligation of that at-will employment relationship and social contract in order to require for-cause criteria that never existed, even as legal fiction?

Simply requiring for-cause criteria is in violation of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws; unless a for-cause employment relationship is negotiated.

Your argument would make more sense if a given State is a for-cause employment state. In that case, I would agree with you.

However, California recognizes at-will employment doctrine and has a State statute that enumerates the type of relationship that any organ of the State should assume to exist until proven otherwise. Therefore, it is my contention that EDD rules concerning for-cause employment are not valid if the employment was at-will. In principle, any individual should be able to claim that they are "naturally" unemployed in order to qualify for unemployment compensation.

I disagree with your premise concerning the public policy of poverty elimination. A poverty of money can be said to cause friction in money based markets. Excessive friction in markets leads to forms of (cultural) entropy and diminishes human potential. Better human capital infrastructure can ameliorate that social ill.

Unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws can function as an upgrade to our human capital infrastructure and form of public works.

allow me to clarify. what i meant was it has nothing to do with hiring,firing,or quitting and striking. those are always at will. receiving unemployment benefits is specifically only for certain for cause situations. thats how it works. thats WHY theyre governed by seperate statutes.

i'm a capitalist not a socialist. I don't care about social ills, human potential or cultural entropy when i'm talking about money and business.

That is what I have been claiming all along. Labor market participants who were hired and fired at-will should be exempt from those for-cause stipulations since at-will employment is not for-cause employment.

Why do you even bother arguing this point? You make it seem as though you are willing to allow poverty and the social ills it can engender, for the sake of mere lucre.

Unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws can solve official poverty in our republic when due to a simple lack of income, simulate full employment of resources in the market for labor, and "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"; especially in money based markets like our own mixed-market political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

the statutes are clear. you may join on or quit or strike or be fired at will without having to pay a fine. in no way does that entitle you to unemployment benefits. those only get awarded on a specific basis, to avoid just the system you suggest. it would bankrupt the state faster than you can say "wheres my handout?"

its not about the money. its about the government staying the hell out of private enterprise and my day to day life. as well as as far out of my wallet as is possible. taxes for the military. fine. taxes to pay government employees. fine. taxes for things like roads and the mail etc.. fine. taxes to pay bums to sit around scratching their nutsacks all day. not cool.

Have you ever heard of the conflict of laws? Sometime laws are contradictory and conflict with one another.

The type of employment relationship that is assumed is specified in the labor code (2922); unless it can be proven otherwise.

If what you say is true, then why are most command economies not bankrupt?

Most command economies require labor input to the economy or the potential labor market participant may face jail time; in a manner similar to your point of view - communist.

We have a Ninth Amendment and a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge for reason: individual liberty to create or dissolve social contracts (that may result employment) at-will. Such is the price of individual liberty, the potential of enabling couch potatoes to not provide labor input to the economy

What is accomplished in most command economies, is a less volatile business cycle due to a more consistent income stream that can generate local general taxes at the local level.

It is more expensive to pay for our wars on abstractions than it is to simply eliminate poverty, at-will.

China is no longer a true command economy. The soviet union was the last one. and look what happened.


equal protection under the law and "under God" in no way equate to at will employment. you need to quit doing acid man. shit will rot your brain.


America is a captalist society. has been, always will be. because thats how democracies function. good luck getting it changed.