what are you talking about? the law is, employment at the will of either party. whence any denial and disparagement of that right?
Let's dumb this down for you. Your employer has the right to fire you. You have the right to find another job. See how this works?
he could but why would he waste his time? Jared Kushner had to quit over two hundred jobs; he should definitely qualify.
For unemployment compensation what? Your sentence structure is so poor that your sentence makes no sense.
in other words, students would be better off and have less debt, while still circulating capital and contributing to a positive multiplier effect.
only if you understand nothing about economics. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Only capital need circulate under Capitalism
No, it has more to do with supporting one's self by working to do so. If you choose to not work, then don't expect that taxpayers to support you. Not working is a choice, there are consequences for choice. It has nothing to do with economics, at will employment, fallacy, or any other terms you like to use in your mish mash sentences. You'll probably reply and say I'm "appealing to ignorance" or some **** about fallacy, but I'd say if you think anyone deserves paying for choosing not to work, you have some hard life lessons in front of you in life that are going to smack you in the head pretty hard.
requiring a work ethic is a for-cause criteria and should be unlawful in an at-will employment State. just one more economic way how the Poor are not deemed worth equal protection of the law.
We can't require a work ethic, you have the right to choose not to work, but there will be no money to eat then or to have other things in life that require money. If you choose not to work and are poor because of that choice, that has nothing to do with equal protection under the law since you are exercising that right not to work which means you also accept the consequences of that. It also means you're a lazy ass bum.
Unemployment compensation is supposed to be compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Employment is at the will of either party and Labor should not be denied or disparaged equal protection of the law.
Actually employment has to be at the will of both parties, not either. You certainly don't HAVE to work, but no one certainly has to give you anything. I take it you're not american born and have never held a job for very long.
The law is employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Equal protection of the law means unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Uh no. Unemployment compensation is only available to those laid off or fired.............and has time definite expiration. There's no unemployment compensation beyond that point.........unless, that is, you work again and meet the criteria to receive it again. Also, bad faith claims are denied all the time. I have this suspicion.........................
that is unequal protection of the law; if you can quit on an at-will basis there is no reason to deny or disparage benefits on that same at-will basis. The right wing simply doesn't understand the legal and capital concepts. Anyone who wants to work, will usually make more.
WTF? That's kind of how this all works. Oh and sorry, but the state statutes CLEARLY define who is eligible for unemployment benefits and those who are not.
capitalism. only the right wing, never gets it. employment is clearly at the will of either party and those restrictions are clearly unequal protection of the law for Labor as the least wealthy.
English is CLEARLY not your first language.Try your insane arguments in an unemployment eligibility hearing.
You not only don't have an argument, you've got zero legal statutory leg to stand on. How many Black Knights do we have on this forum? I suggest you put away the "Constitutional Understanding for Dummies" manual and look at your state statutes.