Unemployment galluping down

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Under most state laws, none of the mentioned employees would likely qualify for unemployment, as drunkenness and horseplay would likely be considered "serious misconduct." If there was a rule against use of personal telephones on the floor, I would expect that the one fired for texting would also be denied benefits.

I suspect that they would receive unemployment.

The definition of serious misconduct varies from state to state, but is generally defined as conduct that is "harmful to the interests of the employer, and must be done intentionally or in disregard of the employer's interests." At various levels of the claims and appeal process, the benefits could be denied. However, if the claim gets to an ALJ, all bets are off. I'd suspect that most of the ALJ's that I've seen would not deem texting as misconduct, particularly if there were no prior warnings that such behavior could result in discharge. If there were no warning, and company policy specifically stated that an employee could be terminated for texting, an ALJ might decide that the employer might term an employee for violation of policy, but the violation of policy was not misconduct as defined by the state.

The individual doing damage to equipment would likely be eligible for unemployment, unless the employer could prove that the employee deliberately damaged the equipment. As you're likely aware, in unemployment hearings the employer has the burden of proof to demonstrate why a claim should be denied. The employer would have to have significant proof that the employee's actions were intentional. Not an easy thing to do. So, I strongly believe the claim would be allowed.

Drunkenness? 50/50. Did the employer actually see the employees drinking? Did the employer send the employees for a reasonable - suspicion breathalyzer or blood test? If there isn't proof that the employees were intoxicated, then it comes down to whether their horseplay met the definition of misconduct. Without more facts, and assuming that this employer is like many who terminate but fail to adequately document, the employees have a pretty good chance at a hearing.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I expect that most of the folks involved in the OWS movement have more serious concerns and are likely more responsible than someone who gets fired for showing up to work drunk.

Serious concerns like getting laid by their fellow protestors, blocking traffic, or trashing police cars?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I suspect that they would receive unemployment.

Not likely in Missouri.

Serious concerns like getting laid by their fellow protestors, blocking traffic, or trashing police cars?

The OWS folks really frighten you, don't they.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The OWS folks really frighten you, don't they.

Regards,

D-Ray

Not at all. They're great fun. They serve as great examples of why liberal policies don't work, and they're great poster children for Obama's re-election campaign. I hope they stay around for a very long time.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Not at all. They're great fun. They serve as great examples of why liberal policies don't work, and they're great poster children for Obama's re-election campaign. I hope they stay around for a very long time.

Huh? So, I suppose that the Tea Party is a poster child for the failure of conservative policies.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Huh? So, I suppose that the Tea Party is a poster child for the failure of conservative policies.

As Reagan once said, "There you go again." I think enough evidence has accumulated by now to demonstrate that there is no, zip, zero, nada comparison between the Occupy folks and the Tea Party crowd.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

As Reagan once said, "There you go again." I think enough evidence has accumulated by now to demonstrate that there is no, zip, zero, nada comparison between the Occupy folks and the Tea Party crowd.

Your assertion was that the existence of the OWS crowd was proof that liberal policies don't work. I'm not arguing that liberal (or conservative) policies work, just that the existence of OWS doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your assertion was that the existence of the OWS crowd was proof that liberal policies don't work. I'm not arguing that liberal (or conservative) policies work, just that the existence of OWS doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything.

FWIW, I thought that it was pretty obvious what you meant.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm not arguing that liberal (or conservative) policies work, just that the existence of OWS doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything.

Sue it does. The existence of the OWS proves quite a bit, actually.

It proves that the constant drum-beat of class warfare from the left resonates with a certain portion - albeit a pretty unsavory portion - of the body politic.

It proves, after a century of evidence to the contrary, that some folks still think socialism is the answer.

It proves that hate can be a powerful motivating force.

It proves that folks some folks would rather be taken care of than take care of themselves.

It proves that some folks are dumb enough to think that the government can fix economic injustice, while centuries of evidence demonstrate that more often than not governments are the cause of economic injustice.

There's plenty more, but the server may lack the capacity.

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by whell

Not at all. They're great fun. They serve as great examples of why liberal policies don't work, and they're great poster children for Obama's re-election campaign. I hope they stay around for a very long time.

Good job you weren't around to tell the founding fathers that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Good job you weren't around to tell the founding fathers that.

Are you attempting to make some comparison between liberalism 240 years ago, and liberalism today? Good luck with that.