Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
"Fair wages" is a subjective idea, and doesn't mean the same thing across every town and city in the United States. For the federal government to pretend that making an even $10/hr. in Eastern Kentucky is the same as $10/hr in Washington, D.C., is irresponsible. But, that's what a federally mandate wage does--it pretends that it's solving a problem when it's not.

More than varying state by state it actually varies from county to county. I live in southern Ohio, it is the lowest cost of living area in the US. Our median wage is less than $13,000 per year yet people are able to get by on it. If I go north or west a couple counties though the cost of living is average for the country. A minimum wage job in my town is actually quite well paying. If you work 40 hours/week at minimum wage you'll walk away with an above median wage income, almost no other area of the country can say this. Neither a state or a federal minimum wage can accurately work for Ohio because of this, yet if it's implemented on a county by county level there's not enough public pressure to ever implement a higher wage. At some point you simply have to standardize it and accept that the wage will go further in some areas than others.

And let's be real, here--when discussing minimum wage, all one can do is take a side and argue it. Hell, that's called "debating a topic." But, yes, a mandated "fair wage" is absolutely wealth distribution, albeit at a smaller degree than, say, Medicaid or the welfare system. But it's still taking control of someone's money and telling them how they need to spread it around to a smaller group of people.

I don't believe in taking sides. I have my opinions, but my thoughts on a subject only rarely align with mass media disseminated sides, they usually fall somewhere in the middle. In the case of a minimum wage, my opinion is that we need to look to fixing it over 50 years because it took us 50 years to get in this mess. Large shocks to the system are rarely beneficial but small changes are easy to implement. More specifically we need to fix the CPI calculations that Reagan screwed up because those form the basis of CoL increases, which determine how the minimum wage and many other wages have scaled.

You, sir, know very little about me or if I've ever been "at the bottom." Talk about making absurd proclamations without backing them up. What do you know about the history of my financial wealth in my life? Answer that, and maybe I'll start taking you a little more seriously when you use my personal history in an attempt to disregard my stance.

As you said, I know very little about your circumstances but I'm pretty sure you've never been in the bottom 1% much less 5% based on your opinions. I have (though I'm currently around the 13th percentile), I know all the tricks. Doing a rotation from church to church each week, eating the community dinners where I'm forced to pray to a God I don't believe in to get food. Going homeless in order to afford tuition. Spending my mornings in class, afternoons sleeping in the school library or on benches because it's illegal to do so on the streets, and evenings/nights in a 24 hour Tim Horons lobby taking advantage of free drink refills to stay somewhere heated/air conditioned and lit so I could do homework.

I know what it's like to not know if you're going to eat each day in a week, and told myself it's good to skip meals because it builds character or when an expense means the money doesn't come out of savings or go onto credit... it directly comes out of what you're eating. I know what it's like to try and eat on $1 a day. Fortunately for me, things aren't quite that bad anymore precisely because of the welfare programs in the US but I'll never forget it. I'm pretty sure you never went through the same.

At least now I have a small bit of insight into your current financial situation, so should I sling a similar accusation at you?: Your stance is spoken like someone who has yet to become successful (and I have no doubt that you will).

I'm telling you, you're not exactly unique in your experience, so don't assume that you are. I'm 37 now, and in my lifetime, I've had to live with my parents as an adult, lived in military barracks overseas while making $13k/year (you'll never find a tougher job for lower pay than an non-NCO enlisted Service Member...they are on the job 24/7, ya know), struggled through college while married and having our first baby on a single income, and then very slowly working my way up the wage ladder by being good at my job and working hard and chasing jobs. I now make a very comfortable living (for my standards...still well less that $100K/year), but that doesn't mean I don't live paycheck to paycheck because we still are paying off debt accrued when we were younger, with a goal of being debt-free (other than our current mortgage) in the next three years.

Correct, I have not become successful, I doubt I ever will be. This quote from you has had me laughing for the past hour actually because you, someone who has never met me, and has only read internet rantings from me has more faith in me ever becoming successful than I do in myself. That said, I know and regularly speak to a lot of people I would consider successful, I am well aware of their habits and mindset. Then again, I wouldn't consider you successful either based on what you wrote below, content with your life perhaps, but not successful.

If you read the thread I authored a couple weeks back asking people what they consider to be successful, one thing that was clear to me was that what I consider to be a success is not what most people consider to be a success. Some people would consider me a success now, I'm 33 and have 4 degrees with no student loan debt. To some extent I've overcome a severe mental disability. I'm currently attending one of the top schools in the world for my particular program, and when I'm able to work (usually accompanied by breaks from school) I've had the opportunity to hold some very cool jobs, though none were highly paid because they were short term. To me though success means more than that. Salary is part of it, but only because it enables you to do things. Success comes from inventing processes and products that make the world a better place on a quantifiable level. And then doing it again, and again, several times in your life. It's much more than mere self fulfillment.

I'm pretty certain that I'll eventually make some pretty good money during my life (or I could just end up perpetually unemployed... a very real possibility with the current job market), but money doesn't mean success.

I discuss it with pride because every struggle I have been through has motivated me to better my situation.

Pride is also one of the seven deadly sins (not that I believe in God, but I do find wisdom in some parts). I don't see the value in taking pride in your work, it's actually the opposite for me. When I do something I generally realize that I could have done it faster and better if I had it to do over, so I look at what I've done as something of a failure.

But, I'll stop there since I'm running into the character limit.

a reply to: luthier

I'm against the drug war and illegality of many recreational (if not all, but probably most) drugs, but that doesn't mean that I think that a responsible business owner who has safety concerns shouldn't be up front about drug testing. It's the freedom of the individual to take the job or leave it. That's not against libertarian philosophy--it's only an invasion of privacy if it is forced, but agreeing to said testing prior to employment is giving the company consent.

As for implying that I bash the poor--that's an ignorant statement not backed by one damn word that I've said in this thread. Shed that incorrect assumption of me, or discussing this issue with you is pointless, as you seem to have some notions of me that are incorrect.

Please note that I'm a "little-L" libertarian, not an adherent to the party's ideology. For instance, the Libertarian Party's stance on abortion can kiss my ass.

But the bottom line is that you're reading into my comments what you want, and then spinning them to make me seem like I said something that I didn't. Up to you if you want to continue discussing the merits of my political philosophies, or just shake hands and walk away, but honestly, I don't need to defend my own person beliefs to you--if you judge someone on their libertarianism only if they align with Johnson or Rand Paul (who is a Republican, btw, and staunchly stated that many times), then have fun with that. But if you think that Johnson or Paul are a fan of the current welfare state...well, have fun with that, too.

It's not that I'm opposite of libertarians as much as you're not comprehending what I'm saying; you're reading between lines that aren't there.

And stop pretending that all libertarian-minded people are exact copies of each other--it's creepy. It's okay to disagree with an official party platform from time to time and still be a libertarian.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It's the freedom of the individual to take the job or leave it. That's not against libertarian philosophy--it's only an invasion of privacy if it is forced, but agreeing to said testing prior to employment is giving the company consent.

But the individual has to take a job at some point. If the company demands indentured servitude do you think it's within the companies rights to demand that? What if the employment contract gives them the rights to your first born child? After all, it's on the employee who decided to work for them.

Legal limits on what a company can demand of someone need to exist, and those limits should be based on the minimum required to do the job and no more. For example, putting aside laws against drunk driving for the moment, it's reasonable for a company to demand that a bus driver not be intoxicated while driving. It's not reasonable for that same company to demand the bus driver abstain from alcohol.

Drug tests fall under this criteria. Someone shouldn't be tripping on '___' while at work, but I don't see why the company has the authority to say you can't use '___' during your time off. If '___' is going to be illegal, then it's on the government to enforce that, not an employer because our corporations are not an agent of the government.

originally posted by: Aazadan
At some point you simply have to standardize it and accept that the wage will go further in some areas than others.

No, a standardization does not have to happen, and never needed to happen. That is an unsubstantiated myth. You literally just verified my point that a standardization means nothing because no economy in different cities, counties, or states is the same. How can you agree with that (and even expand on it) and then tell me that we need to standardize a minimum wage?

I understand how logic works, and I'm not seeing much in that conclusion, especially after your comments immediately preceding that.

Large shocks to the system are rarely beneficial but small changes are easy to implement.

Agreed--and I have not advocated an immediate, large shock to the system at all.

As you said, I know very little about your circumstances but I'm pretty sure you've never been in the bottom 1% much less 5% based on your opinions.

...

Fortunately for me, things aren't quite that bad anymore precisely because of the welfare programs in the US but I'll never forget it. I'm pretty sure you never went through the same.

No, it's never been exactly that bad, but I guarantee you that I have gone through struggles and issues that, while not always financial, have been just as trying on both my mind and body. Sitting here trying to see whose is bigger in this regard is irrelevant and unnecessary, just like your assumptions as to what I've been through based on my comments.

You need to understand that there are those of us in life who, even though we may be utilizing a certain program or handout or subsidization, can recognize when something is not working well and needs to be basically rebuilt from the bottom up or abolished altogether. Just because I might advocate for something doesn't mean that I can't (or haven't) benefitted from it.

It's an integrity thing.

Correct, I have not become successful, I doubt I ever will be. This quote from you has had me laughing for the past hour actually because you, someone who has never met me, and has only read internet rantings from me has more faith in me ever becoming successful than I do in myself. That said, I know and regularly speak to a lot of people I would consider successful, I am well aware of their habits and mindset. Then again, I wouldn't consider you successful either based on what you wrote below, content with your life perhaps, but not successful.

It sounds to me that you have a very warped opinion both of your own capabilities and what the term "successful" actually means in the grand scheme of life. If you don't believe in yourself, that's 90% of the problem right there. You can laugh at my optimistic view all that you want, but the fact that you apparently have such a low opinion of yourself literally makes me sad.

To me though success means more than that. Salary is part of it, but only because it enables you to do things. Success comes from inventing processes and products that make the world a better place on a quantifiable level. And then doing it again, and again, several times in your life. It's much more than mere self fulfillment.

I'm pretty certain that I'll eventually make some pretty good money during my life (or I could just end up perpetually unemployed... a very real possibility with the current job market), but money doesn't mean success.

Agreed with your last point, here, but your definition of success differs from mine. I'm successful already at 37 because I have gone from basically a high school pothead loser who got kicked out of high school my senior year to someone who has a loving, beautiful family for whom I can provide on my single salary. My wife and I have congruent goals in life and we are actively achieving them (and they have very little to do with material things and nearly everything to do with bettering our family's future with disregard for social norms). Our marriage is very strong and stable, and we have surrounded ourselves with great friends who (for the most part) are not full of negativity and disdain for themselves or life. I have amassed many practical skills that enable me to be relatively self-sufficient so that I don't have to rely on others all of the time to fix things or create things.

All of these things combine to equal success. Inventions and new processes and products are fun and neat and sometimes make the world a "better place" (although I think the world is just fine without inventions and products), but those things are not the standard by which I measure success. But that's the thing about success--it's subjective and differs from individual to individual. Some consider themselves successful, even if they leave in their wake unloved children and broken marriages, as long as they have their big house and fast cars. Others see themselves as a success if they're the first in their family to graduate high school.

Neither you nor I have the capacity nor the authority to tell either one of use if we are successful or not, so whether you consider me to be a success is irrelevant to my life or my opinion, and quite honestly, your opinion of what I'm doing and have done with my life is unsolicited and undesired.

Pride is also one of the seven deadly sins (not that I believe in God, but I do find wisdom in some parts). I don't see the value in taking pride in your work, it's actually the opposite for me. When I do something I generally realize that I could have done it faster and better if I had it to do over, so I look at what I've done as something of a failure.

Being filled with constant self-loathing and unnecessary self-criticism is not a good thing--I know, because I'm similar to what you described when it comes to doing things (there's always room for improvement, right?), but it would seem it's to a lesser degree.

I'll tell you what my wife tells me all of the time: Quit focusing on the little things that aren't perfect and be happy with the overall product (paraphrased, of course).

originally posted by: Aazadan
But the individual has to take a job at some point. If the company demands indentured servitude do you think it's within the companies rights to demand that? What if the employment contract gives them the rights to your first born child? After all, it's on the employee who decided to work for them.

Speaking in hyperbole displays a certain level of immaturity to which I'm not going to respond. Your "what-if" game is better spent on someone who wants to play it with you.

Legal limits on what a company can demand of someone need to exist, and those limits should be based on the minimum required to do the job and no more. For example, putting aside laws against drunk driving for the moment, it's reasonable for a company to demand that a bus driver not be intoxicated while driving. It's not reasonable for that same company to demand the bus driver abstain from alcohol.

Drug tests fall under this criteria. Someone shouldn't be tripping on '___' while at work, but I don't see why the company has the authority to say you can't use '___' during your time off. If '___' is going to be illegal, then it's on the government to enforce that, not an employer because our corporations are not an agent of the government.

I can agree with that to a point--but alcohol and, let's say, marijuana (since it's much more common than '___') do not metabolize in the body the same way. It's easy to tell if someone is drunk by just having them blow into a breathalyzer or undergo a field sobriety test (although I've passed some of those before while being heavily intoxicated...for show, not while actually driving). With marijuana, it's much harder to determine intoxication, and the evidence in the body stays along for much longer than alcohol (around 5 days for a casual user, about 30 for a habitual smoker once they quit). And alcohol is legal to consume on off hours; marijuana is an illegal drug (as is '___', both against my wishes).

So, employers have the right to terminate employment for any reason (and I agree with that right, with few exceptions), and doing illegal activity and getting caught is one of them. Now, I fully agree that drug testing is often arbitrary and unnecessary, in my own opinion, but it is the right of an employer to do it at this point, and it's the right of the potential to opt out of the job if using said drugs is more important than being employed. Really, until drugs are legalized like alcohol and nicotine (and I have hopes that they will be within my lifetime), the individual must make an adult decision between employment or drugs.

You pretend like they can't give up the drug(s) that may disqualify them for a job--we both know that's not true.

As for employers being law enforcement, I hope that you realize that this is not what they're doing--they're exercising their right to choose if they do or do not want criminals employed at their company.

But like I said, if the war on drugs would get discarded like the inept, failed program that it is, this would be much less of an issue--at least, I hope that it would. My opinion is this: Drug testing should only occur in jobs that have the duty of enforcing laws, handling firearms or deadly weapons, saving lives, or working directly with children. I'm sure that I could think of a few others, but I don't think that Johnny Burgerflipper or Suzy Numbercruncher should be subjected to testing, among many others (including me...a graphic designer).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

However one of the main party principles. The foundation of both classical liberalism and libertarianism is civil liberties.

Your comments were literally I am libertarian through and through and that was our difference. it seems as your not a libertarian through and through if you don't think civil liberties aee a priority. Even jobs with drug testing should require a dr to examine the results compared with your physical and keep the test results private and locked into hippa privacy laws.

If more than half the jobs require drug testing that's pretty much limiting your options and yes forcing you to decide I eat or submit. We are tens of millions of jobs shy of being able to provide the population of working adults with jobs as it is.

Welfare drug testing even though libertarians dont like welfare is still a philosophical problem of invasion of privacy.

Again they being slaves to the great providers in government.

My solutions are market based but we still require a safety net. Which I keep saying a basic income would follow philosophical principles of liberty better

Finally I am judging your comments and prior comments on threads and have found that you believe people should be able to do what you have done and cause of the poor is inaction as there cause for needing benifits. Maybe that's wrong if so tell me how you would help the poor.

Personally I have mentioned offsetting the min wage with corperate tax breaks. Providing tax break incentives for bussiness who will mov e into poor desperate areas as well as a guarantee of increased law enforcement.

I also think we should simplify the tax code, and simplify benifits to a basic income.

Until he field is leveled. I am not going to blame the poor that they havent toughened up, moved in with their parents (if they even have them) while they save money working a crap job, or any other pull them up by their bootstraps philosophy. The injustice first needs to be addressed.

So yeah maybe look a little at how what you say described how you view things.

Also there is a marijuana breathalyzer they are now testing what the level of intoxicality should be set at however a libertarian principles would be needing probable cause to get one. Like your job performance is bad or there are complaints.

a reply to: luthier

It's not about hurt feelings, it's about judging through ignorance.

You're basing your opinion on drug testing on just that--opinion. I can find fault in the logic of quite a few of the official stances of the Libertarian Party proper, so just because it's an official stance does not mean that it necessarily lines up with the spirit of the party. I make most every decision that has a hint of politics in it with the idea that if it doesn't hurt anyone else, you should be able to do it.

I'm done being stuck on this roundabout of off-topic ridiculousness. I'm not going to rehash all of my comments I've made concerning my ideas about fixing the welfare system. I'm content with you having a misconception of my stance, because at the end of the day, your personal opinion of me means little-to-nothing. (I don't mean that to sound as rude as it does, I'm just stating the facts)

So, you want to give tax breaks and tax incentives, but simplify the tax code. Got it.

And you want to "level the field," which I assume means redistribute wealth to give everyone a minimum income. Taking from someone by force to give to someone else is not something that I advocate. At all. (Emphasis on the "by force")

Don't worry, I describe things just fine when I'm stating my opinions--if you are incapable of seeing them for what they are (I'm pretty direct...not many people have a hard time understanding me unless they're reading into it what they assume that I'm saying instead of what I'm really saying), then that's not on me.

I just find it utterly amusing that you seem to consider yourself the end-all judge on what is and is not an acceptable libertarian ideal. I think you should start looking at the difference between "consent" and "force," and then go from there.

Best Regards...this ride is over for me.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No, a standardization does not have to happen, and never needed to happen. That is an unsubstantiated myth. You literally just verified my point that a standardization means nothing because no economy in different cities, counties, or states is the same. How can you agree with that (and even expand on it) and then tell me that we need to standardize a minimum wage?

It does, because it helps to even out economic zones. It's not good to have the dollar have wildly different values depending on where you live. There is also no political will on a local level to make minimum wage changes. Almost by definition those making around minimum wage don't have any political representation so it takes large groups banding together and the occasional wealthy benefactor to champion their cause to get anything done.

The minimum wage also helps to make less developed areas more competitive, for example in most of West Virginia, or along the border such as where I am, companies could pay $3/hour if they could get away with it, and people could live on that. However, no one wants to live in an area like this so that higher wage encourages people to stay and build a community.

No, it's never been exactly that bad, but I guarantee you that I have gone through struggles and issues that, while not always financial, have been just as trying on both my mind and body. Sitting here trying to see whose is bigger in this regard is irrelevant and unnecessary, just like your assumptions as to what I've been through based on my comments.

I don't want to get into a pissing match over who has had a rougher life. In truth, I don't think my life has been that rough, but I know very well what it's like to be poor and trapped in an area where there are few prospects in life. Oddly enough, due to my circumstances growing up I know what it's like to be in the opposite situation as well and have a top 1% life. I have literally lived in both extremes which is something very few people can say, and probably why I have the perspective on life that I do.

I understand the mentality on both sides of it.

It sounds to me that you have a very warped opinion both of your own capabilities and what the term "successful" actually means in the grand scheme of life.

Warped could be a good way to describe it. I simply have extremely high standards for myself, and for people who are in charge of things. If someone is neither of those things, I don't care nearly as much. In the case of myself it's not really a competitive urge against others, but rather because I have a desire in life to do various things, and to do them I need to be extremely good at certain tasks, and I'm not there. In others, it's because I believe in meritocracies (even though reality is in no way structured like one), so I believe that if someone is going to be in charge of something, they should also have a very good understanding of all the tasks they're in charge of, in addition to talent with other aspects of their job.

As far as successful in life goes, it just comes down to goals. For many people, doing just what you've done is what they want out of life, and if that makes a person happy then that's great.

If you don't believe in yourself, that's 90% of the problem right there. You can laugh at my optimistic view all that you want, but the fact that you apparently have such a low opinion of yourself literally makes me sad.

Perhaps, but I just consider it realistic. I have certain expectations for myself and I don't meet them now, I don't know if I ever will but I do know that if I ever want to achieve what I would like to in life I need to be able to do so. I'm a big believer in the concept of 10x and even 100x engineers (or really, it applies to any type of employee). It's those people who get to do the cool things in life.

Being filled with constant self-loathing and unnecessary self-criticism is not a good thing--I know, because I'm similar to what you described when it comes to doing things (there's always room for improvement, right?), but it would seem it's to a lesser degree.

I don't know about that, I think it's a good thing. Being able to criticize yourself without bias is an important aspect to being perceptive. Or rather in my case, I admit that I can't eliminate that bias so I simply judge myself more harshly to compensate.

Speaking in hyperbole displays a certain level of immaturity to which I'm not going to respond. Your "what-if" game is better spent on someone who wants to play it with you.

It's not hyperbole. Those are things companies have demanded of employees in the past. Stronger labor protections removed those practices. Minimum wage, worker safety, health care, etc are just more protections along the scale. At what point is enough enough, or rather at what point is it not enough?

And alcohol is legal to consume on off hours; marijuana is an illegal drug (as is '___', both against my wishes).

But drug testing exists outside of the law against it a particular drug. Are you saying that if pot were legalized you wouldn't support an employer testing for it? What changes between legal/illegal status if an employer doesn't want a pot head working for them? Assuming they're not getting high on the job, nothing.

As for employers being law enforcement, I hope that you realize that this is not what they're doing--they're exercising their right to choose if they do or do not want criminals employed at their company.

Then why do they not check for all types of crimes? Lets take a minimum wage job because they're often worked by teenagers. It's against sex crime laws for a minor to participate in sexting, a felony that makes them a sex offender actually. Does the employer have the right to search the prospective employee's phone for pictures to make sure they're not a criminal?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Every year, drop the welfare benefits by 5%, unless they

• get a raise or promotion (indicates the job is not dead-end)
  
  
• Have 3 or more interviews for higher-paying jobs they qualify for.
  
  
• Change jobs for more income.
  
  
• Take a course towards learning a marketable skill, on the government's dime.
  
  
• Attend a college are least 50% of full time enrollment toward a marketable degree, again on the government's dime.

Cut out the excessive paperwork at the same time, saving a big chunk of forest to boot. And no more trying to contact employers!

TheRedneck

Or simply require them to attend a trade school and learn a skill/trade that pays more than 10 bucks an hour. Also set up daycare and have people on welfare trained to work there so that burden is relived and the parents can now do the other stuff needed to get ahead in life.

Just throwing chump change to the poor masses does nothing in the end.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What if trade school isn't what they want to do in life? You want to force people into blue collar work and spend the money on training them, only for them to go through even more schooling in the end, in order to do what they want?

originally posted by: Aazadan

What if trade school isn't what they want to do in life? You want to force people into blue collar work and spend the money on training them, only for them to go through even more schooling in the end, in order to do what they want?

Most college is a pipe dream, not worth much these days unless you go into a degree that will actually align with a job. One of the problems we have today is kids are told that if they get a 4 ear degree they will walk into a 100k a year job, and that is far from the truth.

There is no force they can stay in their crap job or get a skill, no arm twisting. We are talking about people who have not gone anywhere in life and are stuck in a dead end minimum wage job the rest of their lives, and you feel they should have a lot of choices...lol

They did at one time have choices and life poor decisions got them to where they are today,so anything is better than nothing I would say. Putting food on the table and roof over your head comes first when you have very little.

a reply to: Xtrozero

And what do you do for those who want to go into those professions? Subsidizing job training for just those jobs will lower wages for all. You'll end up with the same problem except you'll have removed that profession as a choice for those who don't want to go study engineering, math, or science for 4-10 years.

not everybody will trade a sandwich for a snort of meth?
most poor people are hungry for food, then they celebrate after their tummy's are full.

work on filling their tummy's before you call your constituents a bunch of druggies why don't ya?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xtrozero

And what do you do for those who want to go into those professions? Subsidizing job training for just those jobs will lower wages for all. You'll end up with the same problem except you'll have removed that profession as a choice for those who don't want to go study engineering, math, or science for 4-10 years.

Let them study I do not care. I'm missing your point in all this. I'm suggesting a path out of no skill and low education mixed with poor decisions in life and you talk calculus.

originally posted by: AazadanIt does, because it helps to even out economic zones. It's not good to have the dollar have wildly different values depending on where you live. There is also no political will on a local level to make minimum wage changes. Almost by definition those making around minimum wage don't have any political representation so it takes large groups banding together and the occasional wealthy benefactor to champion their cause to get anything done.

Many more things than a minimum wage dictate the value of a dollar--in fact, a minimum wage means nothing, because the cost of living (value of a dollar) STILL fluctuates wildly, as you have pointed out.

"Evening out economic zones" is a pipe dream that is a long-unproven goal/claim of socialism or communism. It never works.

Of course, if we were to back to dollar to something tangible, that might even things out a little more than they are, but even then, I doubt it'd be by much.

But drug testing exists outside of the law against it a particular drug. Are you saying that if pot were legalized you wouldn't support an employer testing for it? What changes between legal/illegal status if an employer doesn't want a pot head working for them? Assuming they're not getting high on the job, nothing.

It's not illegal to wear street clothes to one's job, but if they require a uniform and the employee doesn't wear it, they can be fired. Something doesn't have to be illegal in order to be fired, and when someone is fired, it doesn't have to be because they committed a criminal act.

Then why do they not check for all types of crimes? Lets take a minimum wage job because they're often worked by teenagers. It's against sex crime laws for a minor to participate in sexting, a felony that makes them a sex offender actually. Does the employer have the right to search the prospective employee's phone for pictures to make sure they're not a criminal?

They don't check for "all types of crimes" because not all types of crimes can affect the performance of someone on the job. Any type of impairment can affect job performance, and it's up to the employer to decide if that impairment is acceptable or not in their place of business--even if the noted substances are legal or not.

No one is entitled to employment in America, and as with anything in our fair country and in life in general, there are possibly stipulations that come along with such a privilege. You don't have to agree that it's morally okay for employers to do, but it's certainly constitutional, and in my opinion, is one of those fenceline stances when someone is libertarian-minded, because whose individual right is more important in this case, the employer's who put their time and money into building a company that will provide a job, or the individual who relies on that job in order to make a living?

In that case--especially considering that employment is a two-sided contract, agreed upon (generally) by two consenting adults--I side with the business owner being able to employ whomever they want under whatever circumstances that they want. I also side with the employee's ability to decline employment.

We're going around in circles--I've already discussed most of this.

a reply to: TheRedneck

While we are at it reduce corporate subsity to 0% and remove all corporate taxes,all personal income tax,all state taxes.

Remove corporate personhood, and limited liability to corporations that violate enviromental standards.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I'm good with reducing Federal corporate susidies and the corporate tax since all income will eventually be taxed when it is disbursed. I don't like the other two taxes, but I don't see how the government can operate without them.

'Corporate personhood' is what allows corporations to sign binding contracts. They couldn't operate otherwise. And the limited liability is definitely necessary. Otherwise no one would dare start, run, or invest in a corporation.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It's not illegal to wear street clothes to one's job, but if they require a uniform and the employee doesn't wear it, they can be fired. Something doesn't have to be illegal in order to be fired, and when someone is fired, it doesn't have to be because they committed a criminal act.

The issue is when the employer demands that as part of your ability to continue being paid, that you don't wear street clothes then either. You wear the company uniform and adhere to a morality/conduct contract. Most people say that isn't right (and companies do similar things). Drug testing is no different. If the company says you need to be sober while working, then that's that. They shouldn't have any right to dictate what you do outside of company time though.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, to be fair, they're not dictating what you do outside of work--they're trying to ensure that things that could bleed into work hours and could possibly affect their workplace, product, or safety are not happening.

You can tell when someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath or observing their behavior (or administering a breathalyzer). You really can't do that with weed, because someone could just be tired or daydreamy that day, and right now, there is no widespread technology (other than a piss test) that can really confirm marijuana use. And even then, it is the nature of the drug to stay in your system for multiple days--that's not the employer's fault. So, they are erring on the side of caution if a piss test comes up hot.

But even then, many employers give more than one chance.

Did you know that those agencies that employers use to hire people are, more often than not, the ones enforcing drug testing and a zero-tolerance policy, and not necessarily the employer itself?

Either way, let's agree to disagree about signing a contract to adhere to a private company's policies as being "not right" and move on. There are better threads out there than this, I think, and we've discussed this ad nauseum.

See ya in another thread...

a reply to: eXia7

Right, because the number of available jobs is totally irrelevant. Or maybe if the median real income was rising instead of falling for the last 3 decades, people like me would only work one job instead of 2 or 3 at a time, so more jobs would be available for other people.