Urine tests for welfare recipients
 

an email that is making it's way around:

I can't think of any reasons why this isn't already a law.

They've tried. From the ACLU's website on the topic:

Emphasis mine for clarification, since I took some quotes out of order. There's also more on there about several other states who have considered and rejected mandatory testing, usually in favor of selective testing of just the likelier candidates in order to save money.

Great idea!
After all, if they can't pee they're most likely dead.
I'm tired of supporting dead people.

I love it. To bad they would then have to come up with the money to pay for all the testing. Still a good idea.

I don't think employers should be able to drug test, so niether should the government.

So if trucking companies, train Corps, movers of heavy equipment, commercial boat drivers, Hospital personal are loaded on some drug at work that is cool with you?

If a person isn't effective at their job (due to being loaded at work) that is a completely separate issue than if Joe Schmo the mailman likes to smoke a big old hooter on the weekend.

true, but how can you tell if they're high at work, or were just high Saturday night? I can't say I think it's a bad idea to drug test truckers and heavy equipment operators..... Testing office workers is a tad ridiculous, IMO, but the employer doesn't HAVE to test.

I think that if the gubmint wanted people off of drugs, they'd test welfare recipients. But, I don't think the gubmint wants wellfare recipients off drugs, really.

So if the mail dude then says well hey just little hit at lunch or on the way back at the end of the day and runs over some little kid in his mail truck, then what? Our legal system would crucify him and the post office. There would never be a trial, just get out the check book. If you are a stoner at work in an office I doubt you would get much done and you would eventually get fired on your own. But hey if you are in a Bank and crunching numbers or need to be clear headed to do your job well, then why not? They should have a right to test.

Supposedly alcohol abuse is much worse among welfare recipients anyway.

But all of the previous is just as true about alcohol, too. You don't stay high all the way from Saturday until Monday morning...

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for supporting my assertion that it's a separate issue, what you do on your job and what you do outside your job.

What you do on your own time is not your employers business. IF, and it's unlikely, but IF you can perform your job in an outstanding manner while on drugs, then, by all means, take drugs. If you perform poorly, you should be fired - whether you're on drugs, or not.
BTW, if a sober mail man runs over a child, you'd get the same results.

What you do on your own time can be the business of your employers. I know my industry is a bad example but I'll use it anyway. They know pretty much everything about me. Hell, YOU as a consumer can pull up my file on the industry website and check out my credit, employment, discipline, and education history. The national regulatory associations keep notes in my file about my time spent coaching kids' soccer. If an anonymous report pops up saying I spend a lot of time in the casino I will be flagged for special attention. Why? To make sure that I don't have some outside problem that might lead me to start screwing people over and taking their money. Extreme? Yes, but it is an example of why it is in the employer's best interest to keep tabs on certain behaviors.

Like it or not, a good job is not a right - it is a privilege, and there just might be some restrictions. You don't have to accept the restrictions. You can turn the job down. Same with the welfare recipient. If they don't want to take a drug test - they can quit accepting the check.

Yes it CAN be. No it should NOT be. Just because employers can, will, or want to do this doesn't make it any less an invasion of personal privacy. I am also not convinced that it isn't health insurance companies who pressure for this sort of spying. Eh, what do I care, I have nothing to hide? True for most of us...but where does it end?

How is it an invasion of privacy? You are asking them for something. They are asking you for information they feel is important before providing you with that something. You can choose not to submit.

No one is holding you down and telling you to piss in a cup.

'ere

Large people might steal to fund their dorito habit. People with chronic illness might steal to fund their needed meds. A sex addict might steal to fund his or her need for prostitutes willing to spank them with used tires. A woman with a sick kid might steal to get the best medical care for her child. A pet lover might steal so they can build a kennel to board all the strays. Where does it end again?

In other words, I don't find your argument very compelling. It is what it is, but my very humble opinion is to stay out of my life unless I fuck up, Big Brother, but thanks for trying to protect us all.

the difference between your examples and the others is that there are actually profiles that indicate behavior A has an increased correlation with outcome B, so it is something to watch.

I didn't say I LIKE it, I am just pointing out that no one is forcing you to take the job or the money. You can say no. Just be aware that if you say no, they should be able to withhold the job or money. IMO.

Then again, I'm the guy that started my own company cuz I was tired of their BS.

I thought your link dispelled that myth. Maybe I just cherry picked the info? * shrug*

I liked that link btw. After my initial 'I like that idea' thought my second thought was 'it probably won't happen because as a country we bend over backwards to help the disadvantaged even when testing could be cost effective'.So Clodfobbles link answered many of those questions for me. It wrote that most people are truthful during a paper quiz and say whether they are drug addicts or not. Paper quizes are more cost effective that urine tests.

good link clodfobble

We mostly agree, cousin: we agree that it is done and we don't like it.

However, I could go a bit further and point out that there could probably be more studies (profiles) done as to what motivates someone to rip off a company: drug and alcohol addiction just gets the attention as the most prominent, and the one most looked at by insurance companies as well. For all we REALLY know, every single perv who likes to be beat with rubber tires by prostitutes could be 100% predisposed to steal money to support that habit. ;)

My guess is that gambling ranks higher. but drug and alcohol abuse are easier to spot. Plug the holes you can, you know?

Well, if you believe in my health/life insurance theory, gambling doesn't usually result in poor health (unless Guido nails your knees to the floor) therefore negating the company's interest in that activity until something actually does get stolen.

health/insurance companies working with employers for that purpose? nah. Do you know why your insurance choices change every couple years?

The broker for the big plans makes HUGE money in the year that a contract is signed with an employer. Unfortunately the companies aren't very smart and they pay very very small trails. The BROKER creates teh relationship with the employer and then comes back every year to review the arrangement. It costs the company nothing and the broker makes full commission every year. The insurance company doesn't actually have much to do with the employers they work with.

Bottom line, you don't want to piss in the cup quit. Employers have every right to secure their job place and protect the public from errors that could be caused by drug use in the work place.

So they should give an IQ test, too? How about a driving test? Test for alcohol? Diabetics have been known to act eratically if their sugar sky rockets - better get a hemogloin a1-c on everybody. And how can you test for asshole?

What I do in my spare time is none of my employer's business until it effects my performance at work.

Drug testing is not an effective way for employers to do that.

I think it is if you are driving a tanker truck filled with gas at 65 mph down the interstate. I think it is if you are flying a multimillion dollar aircraft with 200 people on board over any major city. I think it is if you are expected to have 100% of your mind on what you are doing and if you don't someone may be injured or killed. But hey it's just my opinion... Oh that and the opinion of many major companies and the Federal government.

Not according to many employers.

And I did once. Got injured because some slack-jaw built a unit wrong and it got hot and burned me as I tested it. Some tested units could have killed me. Went for treatment to be told I needed to pee in a cup. I refused (and not because I wouldn't have passed.) Fuck them. DId they test slack-jaw? Where's the IQ test? Your directive, then, is moot to me.

"Mom, everyone else is jumping off the cliff so it MUST be the right thing to do." Is that really your argument? :lol:

And if it was a condition of employment you could easily be fired.

Where did anyone say that it was following a crowd? Quite the opposite.

Glad you plucked out a point, there. Yes, I was fired. I was following my principle: they never went out on any limbs for me, treated employees like dirt, and loved the slack-jawed. No big loss.

If enough people refused, the emplyers would have to rethink. I bet they don't test movie stars.... :lol:

Quick! To the Spexxometer!

As for refusing welfare to people who fail, what are you going to do with them? Build a bigger wall round your property and employ more guards to keep then from robbing you to fund their "habit"? Or divert the welfare into a worthwhile rehab program? what?

I guess it is business specific. I would also bet that most of the people at the top don't have to get tested. Certainly a double standard there. I think it is only important for dangerous jobs or jobs where other people depend on big safety issues.

lol...no week is complete in the Cellar without a Soylent Green reference. Well done!

How sober do you want your surgeon to be when he/she operates on you? Would you like him/her thinkin about his/her next drink or having the shakes? Perhaps your in an accident or your appendix or gall bladder bursts on the weekend and the surgeon was on "his/her time"? I'm not condoning anything, I'm just saying - I want my doc to be as clear headed as possible.

You are cracking me UP! Do you think your doc gets drug tested? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China again?

I've seen plenty of drunk docs...waited on them at the club. They weren't doctoring. The lawyers weren't lawyering. The business owners weren't business ownering. The gold pros weren't golf proing.

And doctors get the BEST drugs, ya know.

Just ask House! ;)

For your information, as a commodity, the price of eggs in China is directly related to the wuantity of booze/illegal substances that medical professionals and/or Tanker truck drivers consume in a given period of time - It's a fact - jsut ask lookout!

more often than not ...you tickle me funny bone.

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs. If he says they have to wear pink shirts with yellow polkadots once a week, or run around the block twice a day that's up to him. If you accept a job with conditions, it's up to you do deal with it or get sacked.

Making people take urine tests to get their welfare check will eventually happen whether you like it or not, and so it should. Particularly those on unemployment with no good reason to not be looking for a job. They shouldn't be getting high. They should be spending every moment of the work hour day working towards getting a job. If they choose not to do so, they can go mooch off someone else who loves them more. That's my opinion.

No. No. :headshake
I'll have to start calling you Ebeneezer Scrooge? You don't want those Christmas ghosts to come 'a haunting do you Ali?

Well as has been stated previously, if you don't like the conditions, then don't work for the man. It's pretty simple really.

Here's an example. There's this guy down the street who'll pay me $600/week and all I have to do is dig ditches all day. That's all I have to do. The only problem is, I don't think I'd like to dig ditches every day, so I don't think I'll take that job.

There's this other guy who says he'll pay me $600/week to sit on my arse and do nothing. Sounds like a good idea. The only thing is, I can't drink or get high while I'm doing it. Hmmm...but I like drinking and getting high and the guy who's making me dig ditches doesn't care how high I am as long as I dig ditches. That sounds like a better deal to me.

There's this other guy who'll pay me $800/week to dig ditches, but I also have to submit to a urine sample once a week. That's a lot of money. Maybe it's worth not getting high and drinking every day...

It's a matter of priorities.

Divert the money to sniper schools.

:beer:

Be sure to divide out alcohol abuse from drug abuse. Yes many hospitals require physicians to take drug tests as a condition of employment and they can require them to take one if they are suspected of abusing drugs. There was a time that a greater degree of alcohol abuse may have been tolerated, like in the 1970's, but those times are gone. Acute alcohol intoxication is much harder to cover up in the work place, drug abuse is much easier to cover up as tolerances increase. Any provider who smelled of alcohol would be immediately rated out by an employee. Drug abusers are much harder to discover and deal with. Drug testing only covers some of the available drugs which can be abused in the hospital setting.

There are laws against any conditions....

Your examples are pretty mild. Intentionally? Yes.....

I am in the middle of seeing unfair and possibly illegal work practices as we speak. People have already quit making the jobs of people working here even more difficult, they can quit, but not litigate or have their day in court. Or even have anyone to file a complaint with. Because the boss can get away with it and does.....exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

Congress has made that situation more possible over the last 20 years. Each administration has favored different industries and provided protections which have eaten away at the rights of the workers. I don't see much changing in the near future.

More possible in some ways yes. Nothing changes until a union happens or there is a lawsuit. If you don't see anything changing then you probably aren't trying.

The situation becomes more complex when I have to rely on the masses alongside myself to demand fair treatment, to get it. And people don't care for the idea or want it. (judging from some of the opinions here) It disturbs me when I think of what people had to do to get fair wages and any sense of human rights at the workplace or any compensation when injured.

A lot of you have kids here. I wonder what opinion you would have if you saw your child working under any conditions their boss wants.
heh- This includes harassment folks.....I guess we are back at square one when people revert to the old ways of thinking.

I don't view asking someone who wants a job working for me (with my files, with my clients, affecting my reputation) to take a piss test or an aptitude test or anything other kind of test, as discriminatory.

Your actions decide whether you will pass a piss test, not your genes or your skin color.

Denying a job due to race, color, creed, sex, or sexual preference is descriminatory. Expecting prospective employees to pass a urine test is not. Honestly, if you aren't smart enough to clean up to the degree necessary to pass a urine test, you're too damn stupid to work at my company anyway.

Right, so if a condition of being a teacher is that you have a certain qualification and you don't happen to have that qualification, you should still be able to have the job even though you're not qualified? The point is, if an employer tells you prior to commencement of employment that you have to do a, b, & c in order to keep your job and you accept those conditions, then your only recourse is to resign if, after a period of time, you decide you don't like the conditions.

If people quit and there's not enough people to do the job and you don't like it, it's not your fault, but you don't get to sue the boss because you don't like it. You get to go find yourself another job that suits you better.

I don't get the whole idea behind blaming the boss for other people's decisions. It's probably pissing him off too you know.

That's not the illegal part.....drrrr.:p

I profoundly dislike things all the time that aren't illegal (oh I wish). That's not what I'm talking about. But hey, thank you for signing up, but I just said that there are illegal things going (verifiable)on and I have full rights not to like those things too. Hey they're illegal and I don't like them....as opposed to the legal things I like and the illegal things I like. :) And of course the legal things I don't like.

Bosses still should not be allowed to make people work under any conditions which is why we have lots of laws in place now.
Siiiiimple.

You didn't say reasonable conditions. You said "any conditions". Which is completely different.

What any conditions are you talking about? You're not making any sense.