On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 6, 11:00*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:35*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. *If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. *And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. *Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. *They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. *Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. *For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. *It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). *Both
are eligible for UI. *Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...surance...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. *Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

Read what? It isn't that simple.

Good grief. Read. The law states that UI is payable as long as the employee
is not at fault in the termination. Yes, it really is that simple.

If an employee quits just because he
just doesn't feel like working any more, he isn't at fault.

You're being an idiot. Of course it's his fault.

And in
the vast majority of cases, he isn't going to collect unemployment
because it was his choice to quit.

You are an idiot.

Now can the employee come up with some BS story, about
sexual harrassment, unsafe work conditions, the employer
firing him as opposed to him just quiting, etc and get some
review board somewhere to let him collect? Sure. But it
isn't typical. Which was Ed's point that in the cases he
was involved in, he never saw it happen.

Please. Stick with the point at hand.


But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. * I say it's not unusual.

No, I'm saying that his experience is irrelevant. *The facts differ.- Hide quoted text -


I see, but of course if it were YOUR experience, then it would
be directly relevant, right?

The fact that my experience proves him wrong, yes.

Is there a point to your argument, other than to argue? Grow up!