dan cmon ive told you this at least 8 times now. :i don't want our wars on abstractions anymore than i want to pay your crowd of bums. both of those programs together would bankrupt us. the wars on abstractions (the drug war, and the war on poverty that you flail around with so much) are already bankrupting us.
no more.

All you argued so far, is merely an appeal to authority (the unemployment insurance code), which is in conflict with the labor code and at-will employment doctrine as recognized by the State of California.

Equal protection is a major principle of our form of federal government.

Applying the laws in a consistent manner could be viewed as a form of social justice.

and i keep telling you man they aren't in conflict. your employment itself is at will. thats all the employment statute says. the unemployment benefits are a different thing, governed by a different statute, and not part of the employment agreement itself. youre comparing apples and oranges. they are both sour fruits, but there the similarities end.

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.

yes dan ive heard of it. it doesn't apply here because these two laws deal with two different things, employment and application of unemployment benefits.

What statute does any given organ of an at-will employment state use to determine what type of employment has been established in the absence of a for-cause employment agreement?

Your argument is specious, at best, because you seem to think that unemployment compensation is not based on the previous condition of employment. How does EDD determine what type of employment was agreed to?

California Labor Code 2922 provides the assumed default in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

dude go back and read the california labor code. it specifically mentions what it applies to, hiring, firing, quitting and striking. it makes no mention of unemployment benefits. it therefore does not have anything to do with them, an arguement that is supported by there being a seperate statute that specifically governs unemployment benefits.

again its got nothing to do with whether you were an at will or for cause employee. it has to do with the conditions that lead to your unemployment. if they fit a certain profile, you qualify for limited benefits. if not you don't qualify. simple as that.

You make it seem as though a previous employment relationship has no bearing on unemployment compensation?

EDD for-cause stipulations are being misapplied to at-will employment relationships.

that has no context. not to mention hardly having any bearing on the question at hand.


it doesn't matter whether youre in an at will or for cause relationship when youre applying for unemployment. ALL relationships are looked at with what equates to for cause standards to see who qualifies because NOT EVERYONE DESERVES THE HELP.

This paragraph enumerates the choice of law given two conflicting statutes concerning how an employment relationship is defined: common law. In other words, the labor code (2922) is to be considered more supreme than the unemployment insurance code concerning employment relationship type.

EDD is simply misapplying for-cause employment stipulations to at-will employment relationships; because, California is an at-will employment state that recognizes at-will employment doctrine and has state at-will employment laws, under common law.

If employment is for-cause, an employer would be required to pay severance if the employment relationship is terminated at-will.

whatever you say dan. i'm through trying to convince you of your folly and wrongheadedness. if its such a glaring error why don't you point it out to your state supreme court and have them change it? Then when they shoot you down, you can argue with them?

I have already written my elected representatives to state government concerning this particular redress of grievance.

However, I think this form of "republican" government would be better served if better coordinated with the general government of the Union concerning paying the Debts of the several United States in their promotion and provision of their several and sovereign welfare.

really? what did they say?

It was mostly tax related since it may require a tax increase for the employee to transfer fifty percent of the premium from their income. It would result in a corresponding tax reduction for the employer. In my view this is necessary to provide more objective market based metrics for both market participants.

That climate may be changing. It may also be considered a States' right, to authorize the general government of the Union, to exercise its delegated authority concerning paying the Debts of the United States in their promotion and provision of their several and sovereign welfare.

seriously man. you have GOT to tell me who you buy your weed from. cause damn.