I believe it is a simple concept. Employment at the will of either party and equal application of the law. It could be equivalent to "no fault" divorce from an employment relationship. There is no need to impugn any guilt since we must be considered innocent until prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unemployment compensation should be automatic upon claim of unemployment by an Person in our at-will employment State. How would we be worse off if Labor has recourse to equal protection of the law in that case?
That is unfair, most of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, they can't possibly have the luxury of leaving a job they don't like. A basic income would allow them a safety net in order to job search for jobs that fit their interests, rather than being forced into something just to pay the bills.
Unemployment compensation should be automatic upon claim of unemployment by an Person in our at-will employment State. How would we be worse off if Labor has recourse to equal protection of the law in that case?
[/QUOTE]That is unfair, most of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, they can't possibly have the luxury of leaving a job they don't like. [/QUOTE] If you have a job you don't like, find another and then quit the one you don't like. [/QUOTE]A basic income would allow them a safety net in order to job search for jobs that fit their interests, rather than being forced into something just to pay the bills.[/QUOTE] The job you may not like is what provides your basic income while you seek another job you may not like. Why should others be forced to provide you a basic income when you already have one?
At will employment simply means that either party, the employer or the employee, can terminate employment at any time without need of a cause. A very simple concept indeed. Unemployment compensation, also a very simple concept, is an entitlement by law for anyone who becomes unemployed by no fault of their own. Quitting your job would be considered as a result of your own doing and therefore would not entitle you to apply for and receive unemployment compensation. The law is applied equally to all employees, employers on the other hand are not entitled to claim any form of benefits if they eliminate an employee for just cause or the employee simple quits. Isn't what you're habitually complaining about the equivalent of a "no fault" divorce? It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, if an employee quits his/her job on their own accord neither the employer nor working society as a whole should be held responsible. It is simply a question of responsibility as the determining factor in making a claim for unemployment compensation. Again, unemployment compensation is by law available only to those who become unemployed with no just cause of their own making. Read the law, it is written to equally protect those who become unemployed at no fault of their own. The responsibility for acquiring your needs and wants is yours, and unemployment compensation was never intended to be a means of support while you try to find a job you like. If everyone quit a job they didn't like there would probably be few people continuing to work. Maybe we need a law requiring employers to withhold 2 or more weeks pay which the employee can collect as a result of either party terminating employment, or retiring and eliminate unemployment compensation completely.
It has to do with equal application of the law; not any form of special pleading and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.
That is not equal protection of the law. Labor should be able to quit on an at-will basis as well, and collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It could be perceived to be a form of class warfare where only those wealthy enough to have purchase to their privileges and immunities, seem to actually have the privilege to keep and bear them; are the least wealthy, not capitally worth-it, under our form of Capitalism. Why does the Right persist, in that egregious perception.
Many of these employment at will statutes are quite explicit in describing all employer employee relationships as one of voluntary mutual consent. Employment at will statutes explicitly moot fault in employment for both employer and employee. This is in direct contradiction with unemployment benefit laws that require employees to prove no fault of their own in order to claim unemployment benefits. Because employment at will laws are the most recent they take precedent and all other employment laws and statues must conform to their definitions and descriptions of employer employee relations, including unemployment statutes.
Read the law, and try to understand its purpose. An employee IS always able to quit on an at-will basis. Unemployment compensation is intended to provide assistance to those who become unemployed as a result of their employers choice, not their own choice. You seem to believe the world owes you a living. Being equally free to make your own choices requires one to accept responsibility for the choices they make. A little rational thinking would go a long way toward understanding that there is nothing at all egregious as you claim. When one loses their job as a result of their employers choice the hardship, if any, is the result of their employer taking away their source of income therefore they are entitled to make a claim for unemployment benefits. On the other hand, when an employee quits their job as a result of their own choice perhaps producing a hardship for their employer, they have willingly given up their source of income, and in a just world should be held solely responsible for their actions. I think enough has been said on this subject already, and if you still remain unable to understand I'm sorry, but that's the way it works like it or not.
How would Labor be worse off with equal protection of employment laws? - - - Updated - - - The whole point is about equal protection of the law to promote the general welfare.
A basic income is better than unemployment insurance because unemployment compensation as seen today, can be manipulated to encourage faster employment, before an individual is ready or willing to work.
I am not sure what you mean. I believe unemployment compensation on an at-will basis is more market friendly than a basic income scheme in our political economy. In this case, the market based metric would be a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines, whenever Labor can claim to be unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State. Equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will can accomplish that. and, consider that any form of abuse of that public policy scheme, requires a work ethic.
Well unemployment compensation is a scheme that employs blackmail in order to leverage a worker back into the workforce. At a certain time if they are unable or unwilling to find gainful employment, they will lose this life line or safety net. The market in the long run would be better served by individuals who are pursuing their passions in employment, as that would lead to better productivity of the worker. This can only be achieved if they are given adequate time without the fear of losing their lifestyles with a basic income to sustain them through periods of unemployment. It wouldn't be a lifestyle that is supported lavishly, just enough for a humane living standard of safe and secure housing and food provisions, along with extra necessities for the pursuit of happiness. This income will remain indefinitely until they can achieve their goals of career which would encourage a lavish lifestyle in the future, and would not affect others as they would also have the guarantee of this safety net if they so choose to change career direction, as their present ones don't fit their interests any longer. Furthermore this would discourage the practice of abusing labor in any form by the employers since they depend on that income to survive. There would always be more positioning for labor to organize and not be without income for fairer treatment etc...
Why do you believe that? We won't need social security if anyone who needs an income due to being unemployed can simply apply for one through unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. It also solves for a natural rate rate of unemployment and that loss of circulation of wealth through that form of redistribution of wealth.
unemployment compensation by nature means one should have the goal of employment, some people shouldn't have to work if they don't want too.
Wages is the compensation that is received for ones labour 'given' as an employee, while unemployment compensation is a form of monetary assistance provided temporarily resulting from an unexpected or unwanted loss of using ones labours to earn wages by no fault of their own. It is temporary as the intent, or goal as you stated, is to provide some monetary aid while new employment is sought. Any person, physically and mentally capable of working, who doesn't work because they don't want to work should receive nothing at all from the society in which they live.
If it were up to companies there would be no unemployment compensation, it is already not paying enough for a proper lifestyle when unemployed. The people should make companies pay into a pool for the laborer to sit around indefinitely if they want too, while enjoying the right to a basic humane lifestyle. This would encourage job growth as people will choose to work instead of being forced into work through blackmail. Society would benefit from this model as they wouldn't be a victim to coercion as they are now.
We probably would be much better off if there was no unemployment compensation. Pay is for work being done, and what is done with the pay received determines the lifestyle lived when unemployed. How about letting companies put half of each workers pay into an account which would be used to pay those who want to quit working and sit around indefinitely if they want to and enjoy life while the others keep working to support them. Eliminating, or reducing the responsibility of individuals to provide for their own needs and wants does nothing beneficial to society as a whole, but it does aid the transfer of wealth to those societies where the individuals DO take more responsibility for their own success. Just look at the U.S. balance of trade with other nations, the debt owed by the public, and the cost of living constantly increasing as a result of necessary inflation.
Voluntary monopolies are not at all similar to coercive monopolies created through state privilege and intervention. Just acquisition and transfer ought to be maintained - that means maintaining the inequalities which have resulted from voluntary processes - such as offering a superior product at a lower price.
We have antitrust laws which prevent monopolies, but that doesn't prevent consumers from choosing to do business with one company who provides superior products at a lower price which makes it more difficult for its competitors, and a good stock to invest in as the means of acquiring a share of the wealth being created.
With equal protection of the law, Labor should be able to quit or otherwise, cease work, and qualify for unemployment compensation under the concept of employment at will.
Ownership implies the right to transfer that entitlement at will. Mergers should be permitted, given there is no fraud involved. Many of the issues surrounding mergers and industry amalgamations are caused by government subsidy and privilege in the first place. The banking industry is the prime example; you wouldn't need to prohibit mergers which "go too far" if you didn't provide them with a cartel, and extremely lenient regulation of that cartel. Voluntary monopolies cannot last long, coercive monopolies are more common than either side of politics cares to admit, as often they form a central component of their policy platform. The goal of all Federal (and, largely, state) representatives, is to net as many monopolies, cartels, and privileges as they can for their electorate.
