Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire You must be drug tested to get unemployment. The leftists In Wisconsin hate this.

Enjoy.

http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news...-drug-testing-for-unemployment-insurance

How about all those on Badger care?

and food stamps, first, pea in the bottle please.......

I'm feeling a little chippy tonight, but did ya ever notice those on food stamps are generally the biggest people?

And then those same people with cartoons of Cigs on the kitchen table.




I think I'm achieving disgruntled status.

I don't support drug testing for unemployment because unemployment insurance is an insurance benefit that you've paid for, it's not a government handout but an insurance claim. Would you support requiring drug testing by State Farm to file a claim to get your roof fixed after a hail storm?

On the other hand, I'm all for drug testing welfare recipients since they're receiving benefits that they did not pay for and are a burden upon the taxpayers. Anyone receiving something for nothing should be required to prove that the money is going for necessary living expenses instead of drugs or frivolous uses.

Thank you, now just pee in this bottle, and we might grant you disgruntled status.

The article was a little vague but what I inferred is that this applies to those on unemployment who must take a drug test for a job app. Most states UI requires that you be seeking work so if you fail a drug test or refuse to take one from a valid work opportunity, you're basically 'refusing work'. I didn't understand it to mean that everyone collecting UI will be subjected to random drug testing.



BTW, for those who think drug testing for welfare is a good idea...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

correct me if wrong but I thought the employer paid for the unemployment ins.?
but I m with ya cheeseland on the testing, now if only we
could get our [bleep] together........

I have been drug tested for near on 25 years /random twice a year on the low end ....I use company truck/and equipment... So what I'm boring...

Why do you think the positive rates in those states are so low? Could it be that testing recipients and denying them free stuff serves as an incentive to stay clean? And by staying clean they may get jobs faster, thus getting off the dole quicker? Even if they want to be junkies, they have to go get a job and get off the dole before they use. Just because yo don't catch people doesn't mean the program is bad. It could be so good people don't use while on it.

Was the insurer informed 'you' were a drug user when the rate was determined?

Wisconsin sucks, but this is awesome. Wisconsin now sucks less.

I haven't had a job that required drug testing since I worked for the railroad back in the 80's. Worked for probably a dozen different employers since then and probably 1/4 of my co workers at every one would have failed a drug test.

This reads as if you are trying to make the case that the $$ paid out to individuals as unemployment payments have already been paid in by those same people receiving the payments? Is that what you mean to say there?
Or, are you saying that the $$ payments the uneployed persons receive have been paid in by "somebody", including a bunch of other workers/employers? Kindly clarify. Thanks.

scenario, Colorado legalizes Marijuana use,

Colorado job applicant fails the piss test,

Illegal to not hire him?

That article is from a liberal mouthpiece. The stats cited are easily explained by the fact that welfare recipients on drugs don't show up to take the tests and therefore don't get to keep receiving benefits. They don't catch many because the users know they'll be caught if they take the test so they don't take it. The net result is the same, dopers get removed from the welfare rolls as they should.

Drug testing for welfare recipients has been very successful in states that have implemented it. It's very much worth the small costs.

I'm fairly certain you understand how insurance works. Every worker pays unemployment tax (premiums) on their wages. It's claimed that the employer pays it but that's a bait and switch, it's like claiming that the employer pays half your FICA tax, in reality it all comes from the employee.

If you paid for the insurance you have a right to claim the benefits when needed, attaching ancillary requirements after the fact should rightly be considered as having negotiated in bad faith since there wasn't notice that drug testing was part of a requirement to collect the benefits when the unemployment insurance premium was paid by the employee. Welfare benefits were never paid for by the recipient so I have no problem with attaching requirements to them.

The whole point of drug testing for welfare bums is to 'save money'. Clearly the number they're catching is not paying for it.

Too think that druggies clean up their act so they can get food stamps is gullibility to the extreme. Addicts will 'earn' their bennies by selling drugs or their bodies. It's just a wishful fallacy that most welfare recipients are drug addicts.

The point is not that druggies should still get bennies (a point that the person in the article did seem to try to make), the point is testi to 'save money' is a Bullschit dream...

You're missing the point. They don't clean up their act, they just don't show up for testing thus forfeiting their benefits. They don't catch many because they don't show up, thus self removing themselves from the welfare rolls. If they forfeit their benefits by not doing the drug testing then the government saves the money, thus achieving the desired effect. Of course that article, being a leftist hack piece, doesn't explain that.

But what if one was fired for being stoned on the job ? stupid should suffer

Then they would have been fired for cause and not eligible for unemployment benefits anyway, thus a moot point.

Maybe it varies state to state but around here one may have to "protest" but all will usually end up getting umemploment