Welfare Drug Testing (NRR)

[Brian]

Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:sabadabada said:If its a private employer they can do anything they want as long as they don't discriminate or infringe on any constitutional right. You don't like it? Get another job. End of story. Welcome to America.

This is the sort of assholish thinking that has us on the way to the world of "Rollerball."





Apparently employees can be required to lick the shoes of their employers every day and anyone who complains about it is being un-American. Just lick the shoes. It's the least you can do for your wonderful corporate overlords. In fact, it's a privilege. And they're really nice shoes, not like the shoes you freaking worker bees wear.





You missed a spot.yeah dawgs theres lots of employers that require that word son




Doesn't matter. If there were, you'd be first in line. And bragging about your hot new gig.





And the shoelicking is just a metaphor. In real life much worse shit happens. People willingly go into Massey mines. And there are plenty of people (like Rand Paul) defending companies like Massey that deliberately cut safety procedures just to make a few extra bucks.





Oh, but they can always find other jobs, so it's okay.how dare this country allow people to work jobs that they want to work




The work isn't the question. It's the terms under which the work takes place that are in question.





People like you think it's perfectly acceptable for employers to treat employees like shit. People like me are happy that we have all sorts of laws in place to try to limit the abuse. We should have more such laws.really, tell me more about what i think




No need. This once you've made it very clear.believing that someone is free to work in whatever conditions they want = BRIAN SUPPORTS EMPLOYERS WHIPPING THEIR EMPLOYEES IF THEY AREN'T WORKING HARD ENOUGH





is that it?

 

[Almond]

If welfare applicants, then why not all recipients of government benefits? Like students applying for federal aid. Or scientists applying for grants to research illnesses? Or state employees? The distinction that society has drawn is that a student trying to get educated is more valuable than someone of low socio-economic standing in the welfare line. However, if the money comes from the same source (taxes), shouldn't the testing apply to all?





As for companies, private orgs have financial interests to protect and drug testing can possibly prevent chemical plant mishaps (assuming sober folks are less prone to error than the occasional stoner). With welfare testing, the cost to benefit ratio of testing is not the same. The cost is collective and not necessarily greater than the benefit if only 2% are users.

 

[HarveyCanal]

sabadabada said:I'm down for more laws. All sorts of them.




Bring on the Santa Clause. That way we'd have both the government and Kris Kringle working on our behalf at the same time...the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[chase]

The_Non said:





I'm sure this only applies to illegal drugs and not to Oxycontin and all the other goodies peddled by Florida's pain clinics... easy guess which lobbyists pushed for this.


Oxy is still a controlled substance and you still need a prescription for it, no matter how easy that prescription might be to get.










Oddly enough Mr. Scott also repealed a program that tracked people doctor shopping pain clinics down here. Rick Scott is a eff'n crook, quite literally. The drug testing of welfare recipients was just a ploy to get him elected, he has to know there is no way it will fly, financially or constitutionally. But it got his crooked ass in office, so I guess it served its greater purpose.

 

[Brian]

Almond said:If welfare applicants, then why not all recipients of government benefits? Like students applying for federal aid. Or scientists applying for grants to research illnesses? Or state employees? The distinction that society has drawn is that a student trying to get educated is more valuable than someone of low socio-economic standing in the welfare line. However, if the money comes from the same source (taxes), shouldn't the testing apply to all?





As for companies, private orgs have financial interests to protect and drug testing can possibly prevent chemical plant mishaps (assuming sober folks are less prone to error than the occasional stoner). With welfare testing, the cost to benefit ratio of testing is not the same. The cost is collective and not necessarily greater than the benefit if only 2% are users.pretty sure it's hard/impossible to get student loans with drug convictions

 

[HarveyCanal]

SMOKE SOMETHING, BITCH!

 

[barjesus]

Brian said:Almond said:If welfare applicants, then why not all recipients of government benefits? Like students applying for federal aid. Or scientists applying for grants to research illnesses? Or state employees? The distinction that society has drawn is that a student trying to get educated is more valuable than someone of low socio-economic standing in the welfare line. However, if the money comes from the same source (taxes), shouldn't the testing apply to all?





As for companies, private orgs have financial interests to protect and drug testing can possibly prevent chemical plant mishaps (assuming sober folks are less prone to error than the occasional stoner). With welfare testing, the cost to benefit ratio of testing is not the same. The cost is collective and not necessarily greater than the benefit if only 2% are users.pretty sure it's hard/impossible to get student loans with drug convictions




Do welfare recipients have drug convictions?

 

[LaserWolf]

Every one knows there is no Sanity Clause.

 

[Almond]

You can't get aid with a conviction from what I understand. But not all users have been convicted.





Think about how much money we could save by denying kids aid. I bet more than 2% will test positive.

 

[HarveyCanal]

 

[Rockadelic]

FrankieMeltzer said:But if a little humiliation happens along the way, that's a bonus.





R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.




By enemy you mean like these guys?





http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html

 

[DOR]

 

[Brian]

FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:No need. This once you've made it very clear.believing that someone is free to work in whatever conditions they want = BRIAN SUPPORTS EMPLOYERS WHIPPING THEIR EMPLOYEES IF THEY AREN'T WORKING HARD ENOUGH





is that it?




Hey, if they don't like being whipped they can just find another job.





So yeah, that's it.yes that's exactly it.





but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.

 

[Bon Vivant]

Frank saidrug or alcohol tests for drivers is one thing but drug tests demanded by employers or wellfare agencies are some ridiculous shit that pretty much anywhere else would be unthinkable. For a country that constantly needs to remind itself that it's the freest in the world, you guys seem to tolerate a lot of crazy shit... just sayin...




American Exceptionalism at its best.

 

[Brian]

FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.




Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason

 

[Bon Vivant]

[quote author="Brian date=1315531792believing that someone is free to work in whatever conditions they want = BRIAN SUPPORTS EMPLOYERS WHIPPING THEIR EMPLOYEES IF THEY AREN'T WORKING HARD ENOUGH





is that it?




People can't work in whatever conditions they want to in this country. Why do you think they can or should. I bet you loved the Lochner v. NY decision. George Will has a piece on it in the WAPO.

 

[Bon Vivant]

Almond said:If welfare applicants, then why not all recipients of government benefits? Like students applying for federal aid. Or scientists applying for grants to research illnesses? Or state employees? The distinction that society has drawn is that a student trying to get educated is more valuable than someone of low socio-economic standing in the welfare line. However, if the money comes from the same source (taxes), shouldn't the testing apply to all?




You're right. I think this is the discriminatory effect that Saba is talking about. I agree with him that it won't pass Consitutional muster on those grounds.

 

[Bon Vivant]

Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.




Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason




It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.

 

[Brian]

Bon Vivant said:Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.




Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason




It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?

 

[Brian]

FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.




Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason




The Massey mines aren't a "strawman." They're real places where real people work despite terrible safety records and a long string of violations.





There is nothing unusual at all about people working in dangerous jobs/places for employers who don't emphasize safety. It's less common in the US than in China or India, to name two economies the "less regulation" crowd is very enamored with.they're a strawman in the sense that we were talking about drug testing in the workplace and sensible people in this thread were able to understand that, hey if you don't like drug testing you can certainly find employment elsewhere. of course people actually having the freedom to choose where they work was far too much for you to bear so you had to bring up some completely unrelated shit that impacts such an insignificant portion of the overall national labor force to make your "point"