The employed are drug tested, how about the unemployed?

I thought you was saying Bogart that the tests are a good thing based on employment/unemployment, thus the tests should be applied to everyone.

Now I realise you arguing for tests because they are losers getting free money?

If the tests were in place would you feel ok with the people you needlessly tested? Would it be on your conscience that you are degraded people further?

What about those claiming benefits that are drug users (smoking pot eg) that have paid tax in the past, should they not benefit from something that they contributed too?

Since it is not really about drugs then & just about making sure undesirables don’t get free money, why don’t you advocate not paying people who have a criminal record? And make criminal record checks mandatory?

Why stop there, there are plenty of other ways people can be undesirable;

What about fathers claiming benefits for themselves that have children they don’t live with, surely men that have broken families are undesirables & should not get free money?

What about single women claiming benefits for themselves & their child(ren), should loose women or even as some may see them sluts get free money?

It's a dangerous path to go down.

My idea is still better:

Everyone should be made to come in to some centre every Saturday to be tested.

 

It's funny how having the unemployed do what the employed do is called degrading.

I wonder what those who worry about degrading welfare recipients think of a bumper sticker that says "Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit".

 

1. I think it's funny how making the unemployed go through the same degradation as the employed is seen as social justice.

2. I think it's funny how the employed think that making the unemployed do what they do, makes welfare ok.

It's counter-intuitive, no matter how you look at it.

Welfare is stupid.

In a free labor market, an employee who *chooses* to do drugs might face less employment opportunities, but if enough employees *chose* to use drugs, then the employers would see less labor opportunities if they continued testing.

 

The unemployment benefits are paid for by the employeers.

In the majority of [US] States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.)

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp

Unemployed workers can even apply for Self-Employment Assistance instead of staying home and using drugs.

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/self.asp

 

Because there is no purpose to the testing for the unemployed besides discriminating against them because they are on benefits, employed people have the test to prove they are up to the job & are safe to drive etc

It would be funny, it goes to show that there is an elitist in the area & I agree buildings permits should be easier to get, but just because your having problems theres no need to make others suffer.

Who get their money via their workforce and past workforce, from those workers that eventually may need support; it’s how it works.

Unemployed people do not stay at home & use drugs, most are job hunting, others may not be able to get a job (not through the lack of trying) & most probably can’t even afford to start any kind of business even an internet one with broadband costs and hosting, unemployment benefit is peanuts.

And if you bring in rules for claiming then where does it stop;

Should claimants be ruled out because they have not had their 5 a day? they could be checked for vitamin deficiencies at the same time they are drug tested.

 

To say that 'Unemployed people do not stay at home & use drugs' tells me that you don't know many unemployed people. The only unemployed people I know regularly use drugs, by no means am I saying that the majority of them do, but lack of ambition, poverty and laziness generally go hand in hand with drugs.

Also, unemployment benefits should be peanuts, people aren't meant to live off it. It's not meant to pay for someone to start a business or an internet connection. It's meant to be low to get people back into work as soon as possible. There's no reason for someone to moan about unemployment benefit unless they have no motivation to get a job.

Vitamin deficiency isn't illegal, smoking, injecting and swallowing drugs is illegal and I don't see why my tax money should be spent on it.

 

Max unemployment benefits are approx. $500 USD per week. Internet connection is $35 per month broadband or you can use for free at the Public Library.

Imagine having rules for collecting unemployment benefits.

 

The logic of this post is:
My civil rights are being violated, so other peoples rights should be violated too, but only the people with less power and influence than me.

Instead of complaining about people on unemployment and welfare, why not complain that the CEO of the corporation where you work doesn't get drug tested. Demand that everyone in the organization be drug tested right up the line.

 

I honestly liked this post

 

Except the CEO probably does something legal and more expensive than street drugs.

You know what the most telling industry about drug usage is? Insurance.

Do any insurance agencies demand you be drug free to be covered for things like car or home insurance? I've never heard of it.

If they thought that drugs were such a big threat to coverage, then the premiums would reflect it, with two different rates for people who are clean and people who are not.

 

Great post.

 

I believe they do actually charge you more in ways if you were convicted of a drug related offense. Not 100% sure on how wide spread it is, and what 'auto,home,health' are more likely to than not.

 

I don't know if you live in a bad area, but from what I’ve seen most unemployed are ordinary & abide by the law, including not using drugs, to say different is a deliberate attempt to vilify them.

I though Bogart was trying to save money because times are hard so the above would save money too, if it's about illegal acts then like I said earlier the government could make it law that you can't get unemployment benefits if you have a caution or misdemeanour/criminal record.

Lets just hope your not made redundant & have a traffic violation

Most are living on less than half of that a week, running a house including bills & food plus expenses for looking for a job & it just is not possible to have funds left over to start a business, some are living from check to check just to survive & library internet is hardly sufficient to run an online business.

You can quit your job if it really a wonderful life on benefits, chilling out, watching TV, getting everything free & easy

 

I don't have a day job.

So I actually have to work.

 

Many in the US would quit their jobs if they could sit back on support, it's simply not that easy. A 'quit' does not get you unemployment 'at least not in Wisconsin' in almost all cases.

 

I think that is how it works in Europe. An unemployment claim in the US is 26 weeks unless there is an extension. I believe that a 13 week extension was just passsed.

If an employee fails a drug test while employeed they are uneligible for unemployement benefits.

There are some people milking the system though. They work just enough weeks to be eligible for a claim and are continually collecting.

 

Exactly, it's the same here.

Here in the UK you have to wait 13-14 weeks before claiming if you 'quit' a job, there are all sorts of rules to qualify for benefits too, then when you are on benefits there are provisions to make sure they get off of them quickly, they send you on training courses & even stop your claim if you don't get a job.

It's not a life of luxury & if it was people would not opt to work.

 

I live in a good area of London and Oxford and the only people I know who are on Jobseekers allowance smoke weed pretty much everyday, don't want to get a job and have been receiving benefits for years. The majority of the dealers I know are on Jobseekers. You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think that this is 'a deliberate attempt to vilify them'.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that someone who is unemployed and poor is more likely to commit crime and do drugs compared to someone who is middle class and wealthy.

You can go on Jobseekers straight out of school, and straight out of work if you were sacked.

 

Is that because they were sacked/fired? or because of the drug use? it's because they were sacked.

You may get sacked for having sex at work with another employee, however you don't get refused benefit because you had sex, it's just how the system works.

So every single unemployed person as you first implied is a drug user? or the majority? that is what your trying to say.

I'd say it's highly likely from your previous posts, there couldn't possibly be any decent folk claiming benefits because they are made redundant or the like.

 

It's because they were terminated for cause.