OT: FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality

Page 7 of 9  
On Sep 7, 12:27 am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

You keep trying to mix together being FIRED and QUITTING. They are two very different things. Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT elligible for UE. Your own link, which you choose not to quote here, says this:
"2. Job separation. As stated above, unemployment benefits are meant for those workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Some examples would include being permanently laid off, having to move with a spouse who is in the military, and being fired for reasons other than misconduct."
No tell us how someone who quits there job simply because they don't feel like working any more fits that description. Or show us anything there that says that when an employee quits because they don't like their job, they are elligible. It isn't there.

Well, then clealy that person does not meet the qualification for receiving unemployment. Make up your mind. I was just trying to figure out how you may be trying to interpret this. And here you go yet again, with the name calling. Let's review again, where this started:
Ed: ">>In most states you don't have to decide. You quite, no benefits.
KRW:

Ed: "Very limited circumstances. Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more. I've gone to many unemployment hearings in two different states No one that has ever quit from the company ever got benefits. Nor has anyone that was fired since it is always with cause and proven. "
Now, what Ed has stated is the truth. You then proceeded to get nasty and claim Ed's personal experiences are irrelevant. Now, you're attacking me by calling me an idiot. What Ed has stated after he clarified it is true. Instead of accepting it, or explaining the specifics of your new disagreement, you attack him. That's also something we never see from you, ie clarifying what you meant, or admitting you made a mistake.
Let's see what some states say about their UE requirements:
From the state of NY:
You may be eligible for benefits if: . •You lost your job due to lack of work •The temporary or seasonal employment ended •Your job was eliminated •There was an involuntary reduction in force •The company downsized or shut down •The company restructured or reorganized •There was a lack of company operating funds/orders •You were out of work for any other business reason that you did not choose or control •Your employer discharged or fired you because you could not meet their performance or production standards, or their qualifications for the job
You may be denied benefits if you: . •Were fired because you violated a company policy, rule or procedure, such as absenteeism or insubordination •Quit your job without good cause, such as a compelling personal reason •Are out of work because of a work stoppage (except for lockouts) in the last 49 days that violated an existing collective bargaining agreement where you worked
From the state of Ohio:
If he/she quit, may the applicant be eligible for benefits?
An applicant's unemployment must not be his/her fault. If the applicant quits a job while the option of remaining employed exists, he/she causes the unemployment. To establish eligibility, the applicant must show that he/she had "just cause" for leaving the job.
Examples of "just cause" may include such reasons as:
■The worker's health was endangered or he/she was physically unable to do the work. The worker notified the employer with a medical statement before quitting and gave the employer reasonable time to find other suitable work for him/her. ■The employer refused to meet conditions of the hiring agreement, such as hours or wages. ■The employer refused to provide legally required safety equipment or measures. ■The employer required the worker to perform work that violated accepted moral or legal standards. ■The applicant must provide information showing that he/she had "just cause" for quitting the employment.
What are the situations where you MIGHT still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job?
1.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job because of a hostile working environment. 2.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job because your job reduces your hours and/or your pay significantly. 3.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job because of medical conditions or disability. 4.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job because you were promised a better job, and you subsequently did not get that other job -- this one is a real longshot. 5.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job because you quit your job to relocate and were unable to find a new job -- this one is a real longshot.
Now all of that is consistent with what Ed said. It's consistent with what I have said. It's consistent with what your own link says. And that is that if you just quit your job, except in very limited circumstances, you are NOT eligible for unemployment benefits.
Everyone can see how this started. Ed stated that if you quit you aren't eligible for UE. You pointed out that it depends on the circumstance. Ed then even agreed with you and said that it's very limited circumstances. Then, in your typical fashion, instead of accepting when someone clarifies what they meant, you proceed to attack them. Now, you're attacking me by calling me an idiot.

Nice, real nice.

The point is that if you just quit your job, absent a compelling reason, you do not qualify for UE. And consequently the vast majority of those that quit their job do not receive UE.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of attacking Ed, instead of attacking me, why don't you try explaining the cases you have direct knowledge of and under what circumstances and employee that just quits received UE. That might convince someone. Calling people idiots will not.

Typical. It's this kind of attitude that has resulted in me losing respect for you some time ago. My point is that I'm fed up with your mean, nasty attitude towards me and others here and I'm for one am not going to put up with it. Ed is a regular, long time poster who I respect. You're just a nasty, arrogant, divisive person. And that's not meant as a name calling attack, it's just an observation of your behavior here, as illustrated above.
It's also interesting that you act as if I'm the only one arguing the point. Ed argues it. You've made far more posts on this subject than either Ed or me. Regarding growing up, time to look in the mirror.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 04:42:54 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either (being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got it?

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you were fired or quit. This is simply not true.

Idiot. I linked it. I expected you to read it if you were interested in the thread.

*EXACTLY* That's what I've been saying. Now I'm sure you'll try to put words in my mouth. It is your MO.

Precisely what I've been saying, moron.

*I* didn't say that. *YOU* did, moron! I was right. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Let's not and leave it with you being a moron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzz wrote:

Well, at least one of the two of you read what I wrote.
From my 9/3 post: Very limited circumstances. Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.
I've gone to many unemployment hearings in two different states No one that has ever quit from the company ever got benefits. Nor has anyone that was fired since it is always with cause and proven.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the problem with krw. He can't take yes for an answer. First you said that a person who quits can't collect unemployment insurance. That is true in the vast majority of cases. krw, objected and you quickly clarified it, saying you meant that they can't collect except in very limited circumstances and not if they just don't wish to work any more. That is consistent with my experience. It's consistent with your experience. It's also consistent with the links provided to NY and CT state unemployment and krw's own link.
Yet instead of accepting your clarification, or perhaps discussing what exceptions he believes people are using, he continues arguing as if you never made the clarification, with short replies of a few words and then starts attacking me and calling me an idiot and moron for agreeing with you. Sadly, it's not unusual behavior for him. I wonder if he treats those he deals with in person the same way?

But Ed, hasn't krw told you that your experience is irrelevant? Now krw's experience, that of course is relevant. Funny thing though, rather than tell us exactly what that experience is, he's hurling insults.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2012 9:02 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

In my humble opinion, krw is a troll... and a major-league idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2012 9:02 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

The best thing to do with immature people or those with issues (need to continually insult people and argue with them etc) is to tune them out so I simply ignore those posts. I have no patience to engage them and it is pointless anyway because it will always be the same nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Rather than cite facts, discuss and clarify, it must just be easier to call someone an idiot or a leftie.
krw seems to be a usually intelligent person, but sometimes . . . . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You obviously can't read. I did post a citation to a discussion of this very topic.

...you can't read.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2012 10:27 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes? Its a continuous pattern of doing that often multiple times per day..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance. There are good reasons that one would quit, or be fired, that are beyond the employee's control. Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all.

You simply read what you want to see.

Your experience is *very* limited. There is no question about that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 10, 12:07am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Then perhaps instead of just saying "no you're wrong", it's *not* limited, etc., you could elaborate on those cases that have been accepted where an employee quits because they don't feel like working anymore and they can collect unemployment. All my experience, that of Ed and the other posters here and the links to state UE websites I have provided say that it is indeed limited. The link you provided doesn't say UE is not limited in those cases either. If it's not limited at all, which is truly ridiculous, then EVERYONE who quits who would be collecting. Yet, the vast majority of those who quit are not collecting. That alone is enough to prove your new and even more bizarre claim is wrong.
And once again, you're digging yourself into an even deeper hole. Ed first said that if one quits then they can't collect UE. You objected and he immediately clarified that he meant except in "very limited circumstances". And that if you just quit because you don't feel like working anymore, you can't collect. I and it seems everyone else believes that is true. Now you want to deepen your hole by your new claim that the circumstances under which you can collect UE if you quit, are not limited at all? Amazing.


What I read is you calling people who have been regular and valuable contributors to this newsgroup over the years, who I consider intelligent, idiots and morons. You did it to me and it's not the first time. Funny thing, not one other poster here agrees with your position, either. You dig yourself into a hole and despite everyone remaining nice, you just start calling us names.

And again, Ed has direct experience with multiple UE cases in two states. What he experienced agrees with the NY and OH state UE websites that I provided excerpts from. You have yet to tell us what in your experience leads you to believe that someone who just quits their job because they don't want to work anymore can collect UE, that the circumstances under which they can collect are not limited, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:44:19 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

You're lying about what I said, again. You do that a lot when you lose an argument (which in your mind, you never have).

You're lying again.

Stupid. I never claimed it was universal, simply that it wasn't extremely limited. In fact, I stated that it was based on circumstances; if the termination was not at the fault of the employee, he was eligible for UI. I can't help it if you choose not to read, then move the goal posts when you're caught in a lie.

Bullshit. You can't read and can't think.

He didn't and you kept piling on the shit. I stated clearly that it was a matter of circumstances and you kept on piling the BS.

You insist on lying. I never said that and have called you on it a number of times.

You're a damned liar. There is no sense in trying to get you to understand what you clearly can't.

You have proven to be the moron, here. There's no sense in ignoring that fact. I calls 'em as I sees em.

I have *direct* experience that proves the opposite. His statement was clearly *wrong* and you keep digging.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 10, 5:32pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Here you are again calling me a liar, but you still have not elaborated on all those cases, have you? You love to hurl short 3 word retorts and insults, instead of explaining yourself, which could avoid a nasty argument.

No, here you are again calling me a liar, but no elaboration, no citing of all those unlimited cases where people quit their job and collect unemployment. You really lack communication skills and the ability to interact with others. You must have a tough life as a result, perhaps that's why you're so bitter and unable to accept yes for an answer.

There you go again. The exact words your wrote just a couple of posts back were:
"My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance. There are good reasons that one would quit, or be fired, that are beyond the employee's control. Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all."
You didn't say that it wasn't "extremely limited". You specifically said "It is *not* limited at all". The asterick emphasis is yours, as you are so fond of doing. Now I don't know what universe YOU live in, but in mine, when something is not limited at all, then it means it is available to everyone, therefore anyone who quits there job is elligible for unemployment. And I'm the one that's stupid and a liar? Ed's a liar? Four other people have participated in this segment of the thread. And their opinions range from you are wrong, to you are a troll. Not one agrees with you.

We are talking about employees who QUIT. Do try to stay with the discussion. How many of those, in your experience, then qualify for unemployment? Ed stated those cases are very limited. That in dealing with many unemployment cases in two states he never saw an employee who quits collect. You disparaged that experience as not relevant. Yet we have not heard YOUR experience at all. Sure there are some very limited cases where an employee can collect. I even gave you some examples. I provided links to NY and OH state unemployment that discuss the limited cases where you MIGHT still be able to collect.
You on the other hand just a post ago stated:
" Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all."
I

Now it's very clear that in fact YOU are the liar. One more time from where Ed's post started the controversy:
Post 1 Ed: "In most states you don't have to decide. You quite, no benefits. "
Post 2 KRW: "Not true. It depends on the circumstances. "
Post 3 Ed: "Very limited circumstances. Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more. "
See, Ed did quickly corrected what he first posted. But the, in your style that is all too familiar to many of us here, you won't accept yes for an answer. You disparaged his personal experience with many UE claims in two states. You've called him a liar. You've called me a liar plus plenty of other names. The above clearly shows that in fact YOU are the only liar here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Only because you *are*. You consistently lie about what I've said.

What cases. I linked to an article that described the cases where UI is allowed for people who are fired or quit. I can't read for you.

I simply state the facts. You *are* a liar.

Only because you lie. I never said EVERYONE who quits is eligible. I said it's not as limited as you pretend.

Another lie.

Another lie but there is nothing surprising here.

It's not very limited. People who quit or are fired, through no fault of their own, *are* eligible for UI. Now go ahead and lie about what I just said. You know you want (need) to.

It's not very limited. If the reasons are beyond the employee's control, they *are* eligible.

"Not very limited" doesn't mean there are no limits. Moron.

Certainly. You've done nothing buy lie here.

If I said it, yes. I recall him being *wrong* but not specifically lying, continuously, like you.

Lefties hanging on your posts to throw a stone. Yawn.

Same. Termination <> fired. If the circumstances are beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Do try to read for comprehension.

I know a few hundred to a few thousand.

He first stated that it wasn't possible (for either someone who has been fired or quit), which is wrong. It's not very limited at all. One test.

Self-selected sample. He only dealt with cases where there was a question.

Since his experience is not (cannot be) universal, his experience is irrelevant. One case proves him wrong.

Tens of thousands of cases is not "very limited".

Which is correct.

Which is *not* true.

True.
...and my answer? You do like to lie.

No, he's simply wrong. YOU are the liar.

You're lying again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 9:03pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

The cases that form your basis for claiming that unemployment insurance is not limited at all for those that quit their job. Ed provided his experience going to unemployment hearings in two different states. You claimed his experience is irrelevant. We're waiting to hear YOUR experience, where if one just quits their job, unemployment is available and "not limited at all".

Typical.
Everyone can judge for themselves who the liar is. Here is exactly what you said:
KRW:
""My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance. There are good reasons that one would quit, or be fired, that are beyond the employee's control. Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all."
If unemployement compensation is " *not* limited at all", then it would indeed be available to anyone and everyone who quits, including those who quit just because they don't want to work anymore.

From above, in your own words:
"What cases?" when I asked for elaboration of your experience with all those "not limited at all" cases.

Not a lie and it seems to be the perception of a growing number of long time posters here.

Now everyone can judge for themselves who the liar and moron is. In your own words above, you DID NOT SAY "It's not very limited." YOU SAID:
"It is *not* limited at all" The emphasis with astericks is yours.
So here you are lying about what you actually said. You are now trying to dig yourself out of your own hole by inserting the word "very" which totally changes the meaning.
That makes YOU the liar. And I'd say you're also pretty dumb to try to pull that off when what you said is there in black and white.

And that's why some of those here call you a troll and others like me lost all respect for you long ago. Just because none of the five people agree with you and you've lost the argument, which has nothing to do with politics, you start calling them all lefties? You really do have issues.

It's not the same. Of the people collecting unemployment at this moment, the vast majority, a huge percentage of them, are getting it because they were fired due to business conditions. A small percentage of that total are workers who quit and had a damn good reason why, eg unsafe working conditions, discrimination, harrassment. Virtually none of them are getting it where the reason is they just don't want to work anymore. Quitting because they don't want to work anymore are the exact words Ed used. According to one of your very clear statements that I cited above, unemployment is not limited at all for them. That means they could walk into an unemployment office and say "I quit that job because I just didn't want to work anymore" and they would collect.
But not in my world, not in Ed's world, not in the real world.

At the beginning of this thread you said "What cases?" because I suggested that rather than call people morons and lefties, it would be better for your case to cite the experiences you are talking about. "What cases?" implies they don't exist. Now here you are bringing up hundreds to a few thousand again. And I'm the liar? You can't even keep your story straight, which is a problem that liars have, isn't it?

Which is a blatant lie. The situations where you can quit your job and then collect are in fact limited. I've given you links to OH and NY state unemployment websites that show exactly that.
Everyone can read the thread and judge for themselves who the liar is. Who is right. Who is the poster that goes off the rails, refuses to accept yes for an answer. And who quickly descends into calling everyone who disagrees with him a moron or leftist. Actually they have already done that. Of the 5 or 6 people in the thread, not one agrees with you. The opinions range from you are wrong, to that you're just an argumentative troll with issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". It happens quite often.

You're lying5 now. I never stated any such thing.

In you *very* limited experience, perhaps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 10, 12:03am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Not in those exact words perhaps. But in the preceeding post you said:
"My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance. There are good reasons that one would quit, or be fired, that are beyond the employee's control. Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all. "
Read that. You end by saying "It is *not* limited at all" . If the acceptable reasons under which one can qualify are not limited, then ANY reason, including where you just don't wish to work any more makes you eligible." That is what that says, in your own words.
So, I say it's not Ed that is the liar. And again, Ed quickly acknowledged that there are some limited reasons where one can collect if they quit. In turn, you've now taken the bizarre position that the reasons are totally unlimited. In other words, you can't take yes for an answer.
But keep digging your hole.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/10/2012 9:59 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I can't imagine what you are trying to accomplish. "krw" knows they are the smartest person in the world and will continually let everyone know by telling them they are stupid. Instead of a normal conversation it really is a great way to get your point across and so much easier because clearly everyone except krw is stupid...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clearly those who refuse to read, are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

So you're admitting that you're a liar. Fine.
As long as we agree on that much, I'm happy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.