MikeT14 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 hours ago, WizeGuy said: Bartenders were lackluster on their mask wearing.They'd wear them, but some would wear them incorrectly. Biggest problem I see in most places I've had to go to (restaurants, Lowe's, grocery stores). Soooooo many people wearing them incorrectly with their nose out. Like, come on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbuff Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 Western NY has been really good about everything and numbers are very low. A second stimulus package is set to be announced this afternoon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbuff Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 Can anyone help me with a law question regarding a contract with a wedding venue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, bigbadbuff said: Western NY has been really good about everything and numbers are very low. A second stimulus package is set to be announced this afternoon Hopefully that stimulus package includes unemployment benefits extension. My concern was that they should have implemented the 70% of salary idea earlier (the one that has been floating around) since it takes time for a state’s EDD archaic system to process anything complicated. Edited July 27, 2020 by Xenos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 Also after hearing what happened with the Marlins, would it be horrible to once again say “Thanks a lot Florida!”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Xenos said: Hopefully that stimulus package includes unemployment benefits extension. My concern was that they should have implemented the 70% of salary idea earlier (the one that has been floating around) since it takes time for a state’s EDD archaic system to process anything complicated. The rumor as of this morning is that the new proposal does include unemployment benefits but drops it from an extra 600 a week to an extra 200 a week. The selfish side of me thinks about the fact that I have a seasonal layoff from December to March and wants the extra 600 a week extended to next year but the rational side of me realized the extra 600 a week was always a bit much, there is no reason anyone should ever be getting over 900 a week on unemployment. If it's lowered to 200 a week my unemployment when I get laid off would be about $530 a week and I think that's pretty reasonable, certainly a lot more reasonable than $930 a week (which would be a raise for me and has been a raise for many people currently on unemployment due to Covid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: It's a state by state thing as to whether they offer non-medical exemptions. There is legal precedent for forcing medical treatments on children when parents object. For example, when a LDS/JW child needs a blood transfusion to live, the state has actually removed custody of the child from the parents, authorized the transfusion, and restored custody after since the parents are no longer a present danger to their child's health. In this case, since we should be able to hit herd immunity regardless, it's not worth the legal trouble. This legal battle is on the horizon. Not necessarily with this pandemic, but we have the framework in place to constitutionally uphold it. We just need the precedent-setting case, and a state to do it. It’s one of those unintended constitutional consequences if the abortion cases are overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 Just now, SwAg said: This legal battle is on the horizon. Not necessarily with this pandemic, but we have the framework in place to constitutionally uphold it. We just need the precedent-setting case, and a state to do it. It’s one of those unintended constitutional consequences if the abortion cases are overturned. When you say we have the framework in place to uphold it, that means we are waiting for the right case to establish legal precedent for a mandatory vaccine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 49 minutes ago, rob_shadows said: The rumor as of this morning is that the new proposal does include unemployment benefits but drops it from an extra 600 a week to an extra 200 a week. The selfish side of me thinks about the fact that I have a seasonal layoff from December to March and wants the extra 600 a week extended to next year but the rational side of me realized the extra 600 a week was always a bit much, there is no reason anyone should ever be getting over 900 a week on unemployment. If it's lowered to 200 a week my unemployment when I get laid off would be about $530 a week and I think that's pretty reasonable, certainly a lot more reasonable than $930 a week (which would be a raise for me and has been a raise for many people currently on unemployment due to Covid). It depends where you live though. You don’t need that amount in a place like Idaho but you do in CA. And that’s not even including the more at risk people who cannot go to work because of Covid and need the supplemental money to survive. As I mentioned before, they should have used the 4 months to implement something better as opposed to waiting til now to pass something that will be backlogged because of every state’s archaic unemployment system. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/887046279/we-need-help-people-at-higher-coronavirus-risk-fear-losing-federal-unemployment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 Speaking of which, further analysis of the pros and cons of the extra $600 a week: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/27/895674685/-600-a-week-poverty-remedy-or-job-slayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: When you say we have the framework in place to uphold it, that means we are waiting for the right case to establish legal precedent for a mandatory vaccine? There is a constitutional method for acceptable abridgment of rights that would uphold a law that required vaccination. In the simplest terms possible, laws that abridge fundamental rights must serve a substantial governmental purpose and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. One of the overwhelmingly recognized (and broad) governmental purposes is public health and safety. So, a law could be drafted that is within the bounds of that fairly easily, but the major hurdle is getting it to pass, as it would obviously come with significant political blowback (look at all the lunatics frothing at the mouth about vaccines now because something-something Bill Gates racket). It’s an old case lineage, but there are some recent cases that greatly enhance that perspective too, particularly Sebelious (ACA case). If the personal autonomy right was actually weakened (by overturning privacy rights, such as Roe v. Wade), then it would simply be that much easier to clear the legal hurdles on a mandatory vaccine law. But again, political process is in the way. Also, it requires the SCOTUS maintaining precedent and not simply doing whatever they want, so 🤷🏼♂️. So yeah, if a state or Congress passed a vaccine law, then it would be a blindside to see it overturned... but keep in mind, the legal community has been blindsided a lot by the Roberts’ Court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 50 minutes ago, Xenos said: Speaking of which, further analysis of the pros and cons of the extra $600 a week: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/27/895674685/-600-a-week-poverty-remedy-or-job-slayer can we keep this thread to covid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 48 minutes ago, Xenos said: Speaking of which, further analysis of the pros and cons of the extra $600 a week: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/27/895674685/-600-a-week-poverty-remedy-or-job-slayer If you have received an offer to work, you are physically able to work and you aren’t in the risk category for COVID, you should not be able to get unemployment. I don’t care what that makes people think of me. If you think I’m wrong for saying that, just think of how much unemployment benefits and other benefits could help those who actually, truly legitimately need it if there weren’t people milking the system. And yeah, I think it’s an issue that’s more prevalent than a lot of people are willing to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: can we keep this thread to covid? It’s under the CARES Act specifically pertaining to unemployment during a worldwide pandemic. It’s a link to pros and cons and isn’t even an endorsement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: If you have received an offer to work, you are physically able to work and you aren’t in the risk category for COVID, you should not be able to get unemployment. I don’t care what that makes people think of me. If you think I’m wrong for saying that, just think of how much unemployment benefits and other benefits could help those who actually, truly legitimately need it if there weren’t people milking the system. And yeah, I think it’s an issue that’s more prevalent than a lot of people are willing to admit. Considering that $600 a week is more than I made my first 5 years of teaching, not to mention the 60% unemployment pay for your hourly salary, I don’t disagree. $600 a week won’t get you far in some states or cities, but in the Midwest, that’s a decent living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts