Pee in a cup to get unimployment?

Demwit said:
(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.
Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html
Click to expand...

Unemployment insurance is insurance. You have a right to it and you have a right to use it however you want, because YOU'VE payed for it. If they are using it on drugs, they are using something they have long payed for for drugs. The government shouldn't be snooping around in PRIVATE affairs like this.

Besides the fact that this would be just plain inhumane. We have mandatory unemployment insurance for a reason. We don't want people who've been laid off (forcefully and through no fault of their own, mind you) to starve between jobs.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think its time to legalize marijuana. That said, the measure to test those who receive government aid is not outrageous.

The outcry that the companies that received bailout money were subject to strict government oversight is basically the same thing.

If the tax payers are footing the bill, its not out of line to make sure the recipients are drug free. There are laws prohibiting convicted felons from receiving public assistance.
Click to expand...

Unemployment insurance isn't welfare, anymore than your car insurance is. Tax payers aren't footing the bill. They payed for the insurance their entire working life, they have a right to the benefits.
 
Good Luck said:
There is a requirement placed on UI benefits that one must be able to prove they are actively seeking employment. Being drug free is not an unreasonable part of that proof. You can't be out actively looking for work if you're wacked out on drugs. Going through the motions of looking for work (ie: being wacked out on drugs, or even hung over from the night before, while turning in applications or interviewing) does not meet the actively seeking employment requirement.
Click to expand...

Can you be out actively looking for work if you take a drink or two now and again?

Not everyone who does drugs is a crackhead. Only a very small percentage are, and I have no idea how they would even get to be in a position to receive UI benefits by being fired from a job through no fault of their own if they were.
 
Watermark said:
Unemployment insurance isn't welfare, anymore than your car insurance is. Tax payers aren't footing the bill. They payed for the insurance their entire working life, they have a right to the benefits.
Click to expand...

I do not recall one dime being withheld from my paycheck for unimployment insurance.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
This creates a presumption of guilt against anyone who needs access to a public program. Do you want to subject yourself to that kind of scrutiny from your government just because you lost your job and want your UI money back?

If getting food stamps (for food) or UI (your money being returned upon need) requires this, why shouldn't the 70% of Americans who receive tax rebates do the same thing? This is usually someone else's money, and if not, a portion of their own money that was withheld and borrowed by the government.

Also, if we're willing to pay a such large sum of money to keep a drug offender off the street in prison (which is another issue of cost that should be debated), why after he has served his time are we not also willing to give him access to housing or educational programs to keep him off the street and potentially reintegrate him into the job force?

We can make all sorts of holier-than-thou platitudes about how someone has their one chance and doesn't deserve it after committing a crime, but at the end of the day, only we the taxpayer and citizen pay the price when they end up being our assailant in recidivism.
Click to expand...

Unemployment Insurance is not "...(your money being returned upon need)...".
The EMPLOYEE pays nothing into it. It is entirely paid for, by the EMPLOYER.
 
Watermark said:
Unemployment insurance is insurance. You have a right to it and you have a right to use it however you want, because YOU'VE payed for it. If they are using it on drugs, they are using something they have long payed for for drugs. The government shouldn't be snooping around in PRIVATE affairs like this.

Besides the fact that this would be just plain inhumane. We have mandatory unemployment insurance for a reason. We don't want people who've been laid off (forcefully and through no fault of their own, mind you) to starve between jobs.
Click to expand...

"Unemployment insurance is insurance. You have a right to it and you have a right to use it however you want, because YOU'VE payed for it."

YOU ARE IN ERROR
 
The employer just pays you less because they have to pay it. Making the employer pay it was just a way for populists to sell it. It makes little real economic difference. It just means part of your salary is payed in unemployment insurance, rather than in straight cash.
 
Watermark said:
The employer just pays you less because they have to pay it. Making the employer pay it was just a way for populists to sell it. It makes little real economic difference. It just means part of your salary is payed in unemployment insurance, rather than in straight cash.
Click to expand...


You're going to have to provide something to support this, or else it's just another supposition on your part.
 
Watermark said:
The employer just pays you less because they have to pay it. Making the employer pay it was just a way for populists to sell it. It makes little real economic difference. It just means part of your salary is payed in unemployment insurance, rather than in straight cash.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. They are not required to pay UI unless the employees dismissal is for reasons not directly attributed to his/her job performance.

for example, I'm released from my job as sysadmin because the company hired another company to perform my job at a lower price. Because of this, the company will have to pay my UI for whatever is required by state law.

other side, i'm fired because I called my boss a fanatical moron because she thinks the cowboys are still the greatest football team on the planet and she wouldn't know what a football really was even if someone pushed it up her ass sideways, that employer wouldn't have to pay my UI because I was fired for insubordination related directly to my position.
 
froggie said:
First we test Congress, then the food stamp recipients!
Click to expand...

I like that idea. If I have to take random drug tests because I manage hazardous materials and am in a position impacting safety should not all members of Congress be required to take drug tests if we are?
 
Mottleydude said:
I like that idea. If I have to take random drug tests because I manage hazardous materials and am in a position impacting safety should not all members of Congress be required to take drug tests if we are?
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Test all the bastages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top