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

Being a government administered program I'm sure there are abuses and it does likely vary state to state. The general rule around here is that unemployment is paid if you lose your job and it's not your fault, i.e. you're laid off due to downsizing, your job goes away, or your employer goes out of business. If you get fired for being a douche then no benefits.

Of course Obama changed a lot of that with all the extensions which made it closer to a welfare program than the insurance it was envisioned as so things could be different now.

Sorry, Crow...you're missing the point.

Hypothetically, some might 'remove themselves' from the dole but that is an unprovable negative (unless they could show a large percentage of 'no show' claimants after instituting drug testing).

Clearly, from the info shown, there are druggies who still try to claim benefits...and are rejected. However, the drug testing still goes on!

They don't reduce the number of tests and they don't get refunds for clean tests. Therefore, the system is still costing the taxpayers more money. Until it can be proven that a far larger percentage are 'voluntarily' dropping out, the clear facts are it is costing more money...which is the point.

None of which is an argument against keeping addicts off the dole...it's just they need a better method.

And, again, this goes to the assumption that the majority of people receiving benefits (the biggest being SNAP) are addicts and cheats. This isn't so...many are working people who don't make enough and so qualify for the (rather meager) benefits of food stamps.

What of the working person who spent X years working hard and paying taxes and then loses their job through no fault of their own? UI only helps so much and despite their efforts a good job is hard to find and they're forced to apply for some benefits (benefits they helped pay for through their years of hard work). Or maybe they got a job at huge corporation that makes billions but pays their workers so cheaply they encourage/help them sign up for benefits?

Shall we require those to submit to drug tests like a criminal (or only if they're black)?

Clearly, welfare fraud is a thing. No one argues that it isn't. It's the proportion and the proposals that are incorrect.

You can't prove that it doesn't save money and that druggies aren't self removing either. The federal government under Obama has been fighting drug testing for welfare since Florida first instituted it. As a result states that do drug testing for welfare now have to narrowly tailor their testing to first screen for suspected drug users then test them, they can't test all. The screening process is largely left to the case workers who tend to look the other way at drug use so the federal courts have largely rendered any efforts by the states ineffective. Basically you can't prove it's saving money because the feds won't let the states collect the data that will prove it, but it was pretty obvious in Florida that it removed a lot of druggies from the rolls when they knew they were going to be busted. The costs of the drug testing is very cheap, around $1 million total over seven states as cited by that leftist biased article. $1 million is a drop in the bucket out of the billions of dollars spent annually on welfare. The cost/benefit ratio potential is huge if the feds would allow full scale testing. It won't happen under Obama but hopefully sanity will prevail sooner or later.

Crow Hunter - yes - I sure do understand how "insurance" works - and have been on both sides of the "payer" issue as both employee and employer. That first post was not clear, as noted, and the follow-up post is another issue. How do you make the case that the employer pays nothing and the employee pays all - that a "bait and switch" is involved?

No.
Failing a test can be grounds for termination for state employees in Colorado.
Employers can set policies more restrictive than state or federal laws.

MojoHand
Sorry, but you are missing the boat, not Crow...

I do not have links or internet enough to find them easily, but the numbers were there in Florida right now when the testing started. Using pre-test data as a baseline it is easy to spot where testing started on the graphs...

I was under random testing for many years and as a CG Master had regular UA tests. I saw extreme failures and successes with each...

For example, supervisor witnessed two co-workers in a pick-up truck and one was "obviously" snorting coke. UA done on both and both were put on the grass for a couple weeks. UAs came back negative for the one seen snorting and positive for the other... Neither was fired because coke was never found in the vehicle... failure, IMO.

CCCC,

Employers think of employees in terms of compensation packages, the total that the employee costs. It doesn't really matter if you pay an employee $45,000 a year in wages, $5000 for Unemployment insurance and supply his health insurance for $10,000 a year, $10,000 401K match (made up numbers obviously), or if you paid him $70,000 a year with him paying his own unemployment insurance, health insurance and no 401K match. The net result to the employer is that the person costs them $70K a year. Requiring the employer to pay the unemployment, half the FICA tax, etc. is just a way of hiding how much tax the employee is really paying from his total compensation. The compensation package is a result of his employment, no employee no unemployment tax, FICA tax etc. In the end it's all compensation for his labor so he's really the one that generated it thus he really paid it no matter what column you shuffle the numbers into.

That's all I meant by that.

I can tell ya in this town.....

welfare, unemployment, workers comp and drug use all sorta go hand in hand....

when it involves one of the first 3, you can bet it is involving the last one, once they are collecting and being paid to sit on their fannies all week...

I delivered donations of Christmas food to the "needy" in my area a few years ago, nearly every home reeked of cigarette smoke. There were cartons of cigarettes and overflowing ashtrays everywhere. One place was occupied by a large biker dude and his family, he wore a home detention ankle monitor. In the driveway along with other vehicles was parked a Harley that other volunteers said was fancier by far than any they owned. Guess it's a matter of priorities, feeding their families took a back seat to smoking and motorcycles. Those priorities also included boozing and drugging goes without saying.

You read Thinkprogress?!
Figures.

Crow hunter - thanks - fully understand the concept you express and know that some use a more "global" view in looking at the overall economics of such situations. Some folks don't care, but good for one to grasp the concept.

OTOH, although such a take is convenient when saying that the employee should receive the benefit regardless of conditions (like being a druggie) because he/she "paid for it", fellow employees ("payers" as well) and employers can justifiably look at the druggie as gaming the overall system and not a bona fide recipient of the benefit. The "global" view may not suit the millions of folks dealing with the actual workplace situation in that drug use has been shown to affect degree of work performance, quality control, dependability, etc.

Nothing to add, Crow hunter has nailed it.