• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress votes to allow states to drug test welfare recipients

holbritter

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
21,502
Reaction score
10,422
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Congress votes to allow states to drug test the unemployed | FOX6Now.com

I've always thought this should be done. Now it's up to the states.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on a new law that will likely subject more unemployed Americans to drug tests before they can claim jobless benefits.

The resolution — approved by the Senate on Tuesday, March 14th after passing in the House in February — nixes a Labor Department regulation that limited how many unemployment-benefit applicants states could test for drugs. The old rule, implemented under former President Barack Obama, mandated that states could only test applicants if they were looking for work in jobs that require regular drug screenings.

Multiple states have expressed interest in drug-testing more of their benefits-seeking residents, and it’s possible that the deregulation may create room for them to proceed with more aggressive drug testing policies.
 
holbritter said:
Congress votes to allow states to drug test the unemployed | FOX6Now.com

I've always thought this should be done. Now it's up to the states.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on a new law that will likely subject more unemployed Americans to drug tests before they can claim jobless benefits.

The resolution — approved by the Senate on Tuesday, March 14th after passing in the House in February — nixes a Labor Department regulation that limited how many unemployment-benefit applicants states could test for drugs. The old rule, implemented under former President Barack Obama, mandated that states could only test applicants if they were looking for work in jobs that require regular drug screenings.

Multiple states have expressed interest in drug-testing more of their benefits-seeking residents, and it’s possible that the deregulation may create room for them to proceed with more aggressive drug testing policies.
Click to expand...

Great in theory horrible in practice, the testing doesn't catch enough people to be cost effective
 
Crovax said:
Great in theory horrible in practice, the testing doesn't catch enough people to be cost effective
Click to expand...

Then why do many employers do so at their own expense?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why do many employers do so at their own expense?
Click to expand...

Because a company needs to be 100% drug free and the extra cost is worth the benefit to them. Not to mention that many companies, such as the one I work for, have removed the drug testing from low level positions and even got rid of them for after accident testing.
 
holbritter said:
Congress votes to allow states to drug test the unemployed | FOX6Now.com

I've always thought this should be done. Now it's up to the states.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on a new law that will likely subject more unemployed Americans to drug tests before they can claim jobless benefits.

The resolution — approved by the Senate on Tuesday, March 14th after passing in the House in February — nixes a Labor Department regulation that limited how many unemployment-benefit applicants states could test for drugs. The old rule, implemented under former President Barack Obama, mandated that states could only test applicants if they were looking for work in jobs that require regular drug screenings.

Multiple states have expressed interest in drug-testing more of their benefits-seeking residents, and it’s possible that the deregulation may create room for them to proceed with more aggressive drug testing policies.
Click to expand...

I'd be happier if they reinstated the time limits for welfare, and actually enforced them. And required able bodied people to do some sort of work in exchange for our largess, as well as provide proof that they are actually seeking gainful employment. Additionally, welfare recipients should be incentivized to work by making it more financially beneficial, and not immediately yanking medical and financial benefits the minute they earn a couple of bucks.

I like the idea of people on the government dole, not using our largess for drugs, but as the other poster mentioned, these testing programs are simply not cost effective.
 
Crovax said:
Because a company needs to be 100% drug free and the extra cost is worth the benefit to them. Not to mention that many companies, such as the one I work for, have removed the drug testing from low level positions and even got rid of them for after accident testing.
Click to expand...

Thank you. ;)
 
Crovax said:
And you think spending extra money for a welfare program in which that money doesn't go to recipients is worth it?
Click to expand...

UI is not a welfare program. If a UI recipient will not apply for (or cannot accept) jobs that require drug testing then that likely increases the amount of time that they continue to get UI benefits.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think there is a general view it deters use and weeds out users. It does not. It is a waste of money.
Click to expand...

of course it would. the thousands of people on welfare and unemployment and none are doing drugs (which costs money!) ?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why do many employers do so at their own expense?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Liability is a big issue, and drug testing is a part of safe practice strategies.

An interesting aside, a few years ago, I had to decide what to do when employees tested positive for pot. When California unofficially ceded from the US on the issue of pot laws, it became legal to consume weed, provided a "doctor" signed off on it. Difficult to penalize all employees for treating a "medical" condition.

A positive test for weed was removed as a singular cause for termination, provided the employee had the proper medical releases on file. Because of the technical nature of the product I manufacture, many positions became unavailable to anyone being "treated" with pot.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why do many employers do so at their own expense?
Click to expand...

Though it is probably the case in other states as well, speaking only for Florida, employers who participate in drug testing urinalysis programs get a break on their unemployment insurance policy, by state law. Years ago it was about a 3% break, but I don't know the current scheme.

Drug testing does nothing for safety, but it's a boon to the drug testing industry.
 
holbritter said:
Congress votes to allow states to drug test the unemployed | FOX6Now.com

I've always thought this should be done. Now it's up to the states.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on a new law that will likely subject more unemployed Americans to drug tests before they can claim jobless benefits.

The resolution — approved by the Senate on Tuesday, March 14th after passing in the House in February — nixes a Labor Department regulation that limited how many unemployment-benefit applicants states could test for drugs. The old rule, implemented under former President Barack Obama, mandated that states could only test applicants if they were looking for work in jobs that require regular drug screenings.

Multiple states have expressed interest in drug-testing more of their benefits-seeking residents, and it’s possible that the deregulation may create room for them to proceed with more aggressive drug testing policies.
Click to expand...

I'm good with this, and before anyone has a heart attack because of "invasion of privacy!" or whatever, if you are accepting money from someone (employer, Uncle Sam, whoever), the entity responsible for paying you is entitled to know you are complying with their requirements. Under most circumstances these days you have to pass a drug test to get a job. If you're using while unemployed, your chances of getting employment are minimal.

Do all the drugs you want. Just don't expect the taxpayers of the state to enable you.
 
holbritter said:
Congress votes to allow states to drug test the unemployed | FOX6Now.com

I've always thought this should be done. Now it's up to the states.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on a new law that will likely subject more unemployed Americans to drug tests before they can claim jobless benefits.

The resolution — approved by the Senate on Tuesday, March 14th after passing in the House in February — nixes a Labor Department regulation that limited how many unemployment-benefit applicants states could test for drugs. The old rule, implemented under former President Barack Obama, mandated that states could only test applicants if they were looking for work in jobs that require regular drug screenings.

Multiple states have expressed interest in drug-testing more of their benefits-seeking residents, and it’s possible that the deregulation may create room for them to proceed with more aggressive drug testing policies.
Click to expand...

I wonder, if this will include nicotine and alcohol.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
UI is not a welfare program. If a UI recipient will not apply for (or cannot accept) jobs that require drug testing then that likely increases the amount of time that they continue to get UI benefits.
Click to expand...

There are numerous regulations that require drug testing for employees. I see no reason why UI should not have the same requirements for an unemployed person to receive payments as an employed person would have.

One of the requirements to receive UI is for the applicant to maintain an active search for, and maintain eligibility for, employment. If a person is in jail, then they are not eligible for employment, so they are not eligible for UI payments, as an example. Therefore, how can a person be eligible for employment if they cannot pass a potential employer's drug testing program? Given that, it's logical for state's that want to do so to verify that UI applicants are maintaining their search and eligibility for employment by drug testing them as well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If it is unwise to drug test then why does the U.S. military do so?
Click to expand...

The military is part of government and you have to ask that question? :lol: (You already asked that in the thread, btw.)

People do busywork and counterproductive things all the time. *Who* doesn't necessarily make it magical.

Anyway, as far as business, as someone else alluded to, some of it could simply be them covering their own asses for insurance and liability purposes. Not necessarily because it actually has an effect. We still have to sometimes jump through hoops for other than sound reasons.
 
joG said:
I wonder, if this will include nicotine and alcohol.
Click to expand...

Nicotine is legal, as is alcohol. However, a DUI conviction and license revocation could be a disqualifying factor for, say, a truck driver. But, that doesn't make the truck driver ineligible for employment at a different occupation, even at a trucking company; they could be a dispatcher or freight loader on the dock, for instance. Therefore alcohol use would not necessarily make a person ineligible for employment as illicit drug use would.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Nicotine is legal, as is alcohol. However, a DUI conviction and license revocation could be a disqualifying factor for, say, a truck driver. But, that doesn't make the truck driver ineligible for employment at a different occupation, even at a trucking company; they could be a dispatcher or freight loader on the dock, for instance. Therefore alcohol use would not necessarily make a person ineligible for employment as illicit drug use would.
Click to expand...

Of course it is legal. But it is not essential to life and why should the tax payer pay for pursuits that increase health costs, human challenge and mortality?
 
joG said:
Of course it is legal. But it is not essential to life and why should the tax payer pay for pursuits that increase health costs, human challenge and mortality?
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different conversation than the one we're having about drug testing for UI payments -- the "tax payer" as such doesn't pay UI taxes (FUTA OR SUTA), employers do.
 
tres borrachos said:
Nicotine and alcohol are not illegal for anyone over the age of 21.
Click to expand...

True. But why should tax payers pay for discretionary items that increase health care costs, cause handicap and higher mortality? It sounds like an odd thing for society to pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom