> Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I > work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the > government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In > order to get that paycheck some employers require > employees to pass a random urine test, which I have > no problem with. > > What I do have a problem with is the distribution of > my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine > test!?? > > Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a > welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it > for them? > ??? > Please understand, I have no problem with helping > people get back on their feet. I do, on the other > hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on > their ass, and buy dope and booze with my > hard-earned money. > > Can you imagine how much money the government would > save if people had to pass a urine test to get a > public assistance check?
So... what do you think of THAT?
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Well, if you look at the reasons some employers do random drug checks, it has to do with wanting a safe and effective workplace. Imagine the government saying they wanted a safe and effective welfare population. (That just sounds funny to me.)
The letter above reeks of righteous indignation. In my life, I need to avoid that for my own sanity. And drugs are addicting. How do you judge when to cut off the money and when to help?
Also, I'm really not going to be for MORE government and this would spawn basically a whole new wing.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
I think employment urine tests are evil. They basically allow the powerful to lord it over the less powerful.
I can see the usefulness for truck drivers, heavy machinery operators, and airline pilots.
But for accountants and switchboard operators? Give me a break. If they're not doing their job, then fire them. Otherwise, butt out, oh ye of the unrighteous dominion.
I worked at a trucking firm once that didn't drug test (although we were informed it would start happening randomly within six months). We weren't doing well financially, and another company bought us.
Now, if this other company had fired the excess employees, the employees would have received unemployment benefits, thus increasing said company's unemployment insurance costs for many years thereafter.
Stupid Texan, son of the owner of the new company, thought to himself: "I'll just drug test everyone, fire the positives for cause, and save on unemployment." Well, duh!!! NO ONE FLUNKED (welcome to Utah, jerk). So he still had to pay unemployment, plus he had just spent thousands on drug testing!!!!! HAH! HAH! HAH! Score one for the meek.
The thing that bugged me most about the above scenario was that the Stupid Texan's aged mother (who really owned the company) sent us all a lovely letter (back when they bought our company) about how their family just considered that their trucking firm was really Jesus' trucking firm, and HE just lets them run it.
Gag me!
Yeah, Jesus would be pleased that you tried to do layoffs in a manner that would make the laid-off people suffer as much financially as possible. Oh, yeah, and he'd let aged Texas Widow's son run around sexually harassing and profaning all over the company.
I dunno. I think employers should have some protections. A bad employee can do a lot of damage to your company. I think if a person signs a contract when they're hired and agrees to it up front, then there's really no reason to be contrary . . .
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
How many people actually work on a contract though? Employment at will is not the same thing as being under a contract. Most professionals do not work under a contract. And employers like it that way because it frees them up from a lot of the problems and hinderances they would have at firing people if they were under a contract.
Take for example union employees. Union employees are always under contract. You try to fire or lay off a union member, and you have to fight it and prove it all the way through the union and it is long, drawn out, and costly.
Take for example corporate executives. Not only do they get to write their own contracts in most cases, but they write it in such a way that even if there is found a reason for the board to fire them, they still get to go away with the company's money because they had it written in that if they were to be dismissed for any reason before the end of said contract, the company had to pay them tens of millions in severance and pension credits and what have ya...
But, you and me typical office employee. We can be let go with no or little risk of repercussion for any cause, even if we are a top-notch employee... for the mere fact that someone up the food chain has decided there needs to be productivity improvements (nice word for stating that we need to cut the number of employees so that our bottom line is short term improved by cutting compensation costs) so targets get moved down the food chain to the point where a manager has to determine who within his or her organization is going to be let go so that they can show the bigger fish that they as a manager are towing the line and won't become the target of a downsizing / rightsizing (it becomes a tactic of entrenching for bad leaders themselves... sacrifice the revenue generating peons so that the fat cats can survive to dine another day).
As to the original topic of the thread, I think that for certain types of welfare, it may not be such a bad thing to have drug testing as part of a comprehensive approach to reform and getting people off the dole who don't need to be there.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
We do drug testing for everyone. Even the management and owners. We have DOT required testing but when that came into effect decided to test everyone. If someone fails we will allow them to keep their job if they complete treatment and stay clean after that. I have had only one person actually do the treatment and stay clean. All the others refused treatment and decided to quit their jobs. Good riddance. I don't need the safety hazards or them sneaking breaks to do drugs.
To be hired at my workplace one is required to undergo a urine drug test and considering it is a pharmacy, I can see why they do it. But, once you're hired there is no more after that. We actually had someone hired recently who had something show up on his drug test. It was prescription medication and he was stupid enough to take it the night before he took the test, but still now the reference lab needs to follow up on it. Verifying who wrote script, why it was written, etc. Personally, I think that people who receive welfare should be required to undergo drug testing. I see alot of addicts who are receving medicaid and other government welfare assistance, and we are paying to support their habit.
As far as the workplace goes, I'm not sure about that one. I think maybe it depends on what type of work it is. I kind of agree with Hiccups, the person who sent that e-mail sounds like he is full of righteous indignation.
The worst thing about office politics is how ridiculous you feel once you're out of the office and able to examine them from an outsider's perspective...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
The one before him (girl) was closer to 4. 
