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"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
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.
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 Scott also repealed a program that tracked people doctor shopping pain clinics down here.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.
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"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
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
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.
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.
Drug 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...
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
[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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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?
It's not that the coal mine is magical. It's that there is a lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
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?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
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?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
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.
In a scenario where a tragedy does happen at the workplace one of the first things that's gonna happen is the person who caused it is going to be tested to see if they are under the influence of something. The company is going to be sued as they have the deepest pockets. And the company is going to do everything in their power to minimize their liability. That's going to include terminating anyone who doesn't follow safety procedures, visually monitoring their employees for fatigue and alcohol use, and testing up front for drugs.
If it didn't benefit the big bad corporation in some monetary way they would not be spending the millions of dollars on drug testing that they do.....they are certainly not doing it to simply humiliate or insult the potential employee.
I would give the employer every right to ensure that workers come in sober and don't drink or do drugs on the job. If I apply for a job, I want to sell my time from 9-5 and the employer should have every right to make sure I'm not under the influence of anything and this shoud include prescription medication like Oxy.
BUT
Whatever I do on my own private time os none of my employers business. I don't think the employer should have the right to scan my body for traces of substances consumed outside of my work hours. Give me a breathalizer when I come in in the morning or when I come back from my lunch break, check if I smell of weed whatever you can do to see if I might be under the influence of whatever but whatever I did on Friday or Saturday night is none of your business. And to have some corporation tell me to go piss in a cup would just violate my dignity.
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.
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?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
oh good lord...go fuck yourself with that insightful statement.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
Do welfare recipients have drug convictions?
Think about how much money we could save by denying kids aid. I bet more than 2% will test positive.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
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.
American Exceptionalism at its best.
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.
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.
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.
It's not that the coal mine is magical. It's that there is a lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
I think he is doing performance art.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.
I would give the employer every right to ensure that workers come in sober and don't drink or do drugs on the job. If I apply for a job, I want to sell my time from 9-5 and the employer should have every right to make sure I'm not under the influence of anything and this shoud include prescription medication like Oxy.
BUT
Whatever I do on my own private time os none of my employers business. I don't think the employer should have the right to scan my body for traces of substances consumed outside of my work hours. Give me a breathalizer when I come in in the morning or when I come back from my lunch break, check if I smell of weed whatever you can do to see if I might be under the influence of whatever but whatever I did on Friday or Saturday night is none of your business. And to have some corporation tell me to go piss in a cup would just violate my dignity.
oh good lord...go fuck yourself with that insightful statement.
Good question....
I cut my hair for the first time in 10 years just before my interview.
After I was hired I asked if it would have changed their decision if I had long hair.
They said it wouldn't have.
I know better.