Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A work ethic. California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A work ethic. California

    Why is it that only labor is required to have a work ethic and employers are not, similarly, required to have an employment ethic, in any at-will employment State as a privilege and immunity under Article 4, Section 2 of our supreme law of the land?

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
    Simply requiring extra-legal liabilities could be viewed as an infringement to the privileges and immunities of labor if not also required from employers.

    Maybe we can start in Right to Work States.
    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

  • #2
    Tea, anyone?
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for demonstrating how much you care about our modern civil rights in modern times. Would you like a citation in any given history book?
      Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cbg View Post
        Tea, anyone?
        Are there crumpets again also?
        Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

        Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

        Comment


        • #5
          How is it that the several States can be indulged in, not only being repugnant to a federal doctrine in American law, but also being repugnant to Article 1, Section 10 of our supreme law of the land regarding the Obligation of (social) contracts such as the "rule of law" in modern times.

          At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can immediately terminate the relationship at any time with or without any advance warning,[1] and with no subsequent liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
          any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[2]
          There is no legal basis to require any work ethic from labor if there is not a similar requirement for employers regarding an employment ethic; especially in Right to Work States.
          Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

          Comment


          • #6
            How about some Mexican and margaritas?
            I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.
            Thomas Jefferson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Morgana View Post
              How about some Mexican and margaritas?


              I'm in!

              I make a wicked mango salsa, btw!

              Comment


              • #8
                I was going to show you how to can that - we'll have to find a time to do so.
                The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think i am going to need something really strong because i am still trying to comprehend even the main idea of the op's point(s)...... the only thing i can get is that females in the HR profession lack the ability to find him attractive? I really should stop trying to deal with loonies.....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We've all completely dropped the idea of responding to him at all since nothing he says makes any sense. But he does provide us with a lovely grounds for a tea party, with or without additional alcoholic additions. You in?
                    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why am I not surprised that those of the opposing view have a difficult time with our language; is it really worth equal pay.
                      Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh, we're not having any trouble at all with language, Daniel, but thank you for your concern.

                        It's you we're having trouble with.
                        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am definitely in....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Glad to have you aboard, hrforme. What's your pleasure?
                            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by cbg View Post
                              Oh, we're not having any trouble at all with language, Daniel, but thank you for your concern.

                              It's you we're having trouble with.
                              It must be difficult to deal with someone who resorts to the fewest fallacies as a moral and ethic in modern times. I feel for you.

                              I prefer cheesecake to crumpets, thank you very much.
                              Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X