It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced Drug & Alcohol Testing to get Unemployment Benefits

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Blow in the breathalyser and then get a culture swab on the inside of their mouth.

That would probably knock off two-thirds of congress on a random day of testing after the extended lunch break that they enjoy?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
People should then have the option of opting out of paying into unemployment insurance if it can be taken away for having a drink or something once in a while. I don't know what the rate is in the US, but here in Canada we have to pay into it with every paycheque. Mandatory.

What they are talking about is getting close to prohibition again. If someone else is offering you drinks, what does that have to do with your own unemployment? You are not allowed to accept a drink? Or be cut off benefits, that you paid into when working? :shk:



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Companies pay into the system. I think it is based on how many employees you have etc. But someone can correct me.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Well i have had gov trying to run my life since i was at school in uk, and destroying it all the time.



So you keep saying, but you haven't provided any proof of this..



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


You are right. Employers pay into unemployment not the worker's. However, the point of unemployment I think is a good thing for companies doing business. It makes recessions a lot softer on companies, and allows more people to keep their jobs. If we had no unemployment small dips in employment levels would cascade quickly resulting in tons more layoffs than with people receiving the unemployment benefits. I personally would like to see unemployment privatized where I could pay into it and if I lost my job could collect on a level that meets my needs.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


How much of your tax do you think goes to them ?
the Gov. use more of the tax money on far more silly secret stuff.



[edit on 20-6-2010 by Vicodin]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Companies pay into the system. I think it is based on how many employees you have etc. But someone can correct me.


Weird way to set it up. Up here companies pay toward the Canada Pension Plan, 50 50 with employees, but it is the employee alone that pays into the unemployment. That must make it really hard to run small businesses down there, I have been watching how you guys are getting screwed on the upcoming medical costs, up here it depends on the agreements between the companies and unions for the best plans, and otherwise we just pay into as citizens, working or not. I think, not sure, the most expensive province is about $100 a month, per person. A couple of provinces give free medical.

I can see more bankruptcies on the way for the US once Obamacare kicks in


Back on topic:
Still seems like prohibition.

edit to add.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by snowspirit]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Well, lets see how these companies have profited (LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics).

Labcorp's Annual Earnings

- Interesting, only about 2 billion in gross profit for 2009. How much of that is going into the pockets of congress?

Quest Diagnostics Annual Earnings

- About 3.1 billion in gross profits from 2009 for Quest. Although, it should be noted that they do a bit more than drugtesting.


So, just like the prison system, drugtesting has turned into quite the big business.

So.. you get paid every 2 weeks for unemployment?.. 2 drug tests a month multiplied by how many unemployed in America currently? Give me a break.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Whenever law makers start pulling these kinds of stunts it always makes me nervous. It seems that when they find these cozy little issues where they can get away with tweaking the idea of "freedom" by using public outrage as a tool, we always suffer in the long run. It's easy to make a mob lash out at any disenfranchised group so this will probably be a very popular idea.


The problem for me isn't really drug testing unemployment claimants, though I don't agree with the idea either. It's that once we accept this as being OK, what comes next... And then next... And so on. I can remember what car insurance cost before it was made mandatory. I can remember when you actually had to be drunk to get charged with drunk driving.

So, as I sit here, paying an arm and a leg for car insurance, knowing that I can't have a glass of wine with dinner if I have any plans afterwards, I read this and wonder how long it will be before I am being arbitrarily drug and alcohol tested on a regular basis as part of my normal routine.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The people who say "I'm all for this!. They're spending my money!!" need to be deprogrammed and learn the difference between unemployment and welfare. This is a program as a worker you are FORCED to pay into. When you apply for unemployment you are applying and having to beg to get YOUR money back. Not someone else's.

For either I appose testing for alcohol. It's a legal substance and leads to a slippery slope of the government telling us what we can and cannot purchase and ingest.

We've been deemed incapable of managing our own emergency funds.
The government forcefully holds onto it, drawing interest off our money.
Now they want to make us take drug tests to claim our own money?

It's a money grab plain and simple.

Insurance of any kind is fraudulent. We should be able to opt out of insurance of any kind and be allowed to be bonded instead. This allows us to keep the money in a separate interest drawing account where we keep the interest and there can be no denial of claims because some yahoo decides the money looks better in his pockets.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by PayMeh]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
first, the writers of the law probably are trying to weed out a few recepients to lower the costs.
they might have suggested alcohol AND drug figuring they'd hear objections and could remove the alcohol portion and call it a compromise.
I certainly hate the idea of any of my tax dollar$ going to anyone taking (illegal of course) drugs.

in re to congress; the lushes aren't the problem. It's the stone cold sober acheive maniacs that are making things happen (all the wrong things). Picture a bunch of Rahm Emmanuel idealogues running things.
(or, depending on your political persuasion, an army of Dick Cheneys).



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
first, the writers of the law probably are trying to weed out a few recepients to lower the costs.
they might have suggested alcohol AND drug figuring they'd hear objections and could remove the alcohol portion and call it a compromise.
I certainly hate the idea of any of my tax dollar$ going to anyone taking (illegal of course) drugs.

in re to congress; the lushes aren't the problem. It's the stone cold sober acheive maniacs that are making things happen (all the wrong things). Picture a bunch of Rahm Emmanuel idealogues running things.
(or, depending on your political persuasion, an army of Dick Cheneys).


First off, drug testing costs lots of money. So how are we going to pay for that with all the people out of work?

Second, these people got fired not because of the illegal/legal drugs they took. But because they were terminated from their previous job, most likely because of the unfavorable economy.

Third, they aren't your tax dollars. The companies themselves as previous explained in this thread pay into the system, not you.

Fourth, the idea of legal / illegal drugs is a fallacy. I can have prescription amphetamine in my possession and use it legally while Mr. X will be put away for years if caught with it. Sound fair?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I thought that prohibition had been repealed by the 21st amendment ?

Why is alcohol even mentioned in this bill ?

Oh, I should have guessed that Orrin Hatch was behind this.
He's the first to Bitch about Military Spending but when it comes to helping everyday Americans.

His "Holier than Thou" attitude is pretty obvious. Which is Screw 'Em !!

He's now Holier than thou and categorically degrading the unemployed and unfairly lumping them in with the career welfare abusers.

Orrin Hatch needs to look at the US Non Farm Payroll report before he makes such a judgment call upon the Nation's Unemployed.

For in simply reviewing the Govt data, ie the Monthly Jobs Report,
there are not enough jobs being created to support the needs of American workforce that are currently unemployed.

And Furthermore:

The only recipients of Unemployment Benefits are:

1.) Those that haven't been fired from their jobs.

2.) Have paid into the system.


What relevance this has to Drug Abusers, other than padding his bank account with kick backs from the Testing Corporations....probably based in his home state of UTAH.

I recently posted on the Right Winger's 2005 Legislation preventing people from using their legal rights to Bankruptcy Protection and now we are back to essentially debtor's prisons.

I saw all of this coming years ago, and this is just further proof of a planned depression as well as perpetuation of a system of Haves and Have Nots.

It's also as to why we have a CHANGE President in The White House.

They want all of us to get really mad and starting a Revolution so they can begin rounding us all up and filling up Dick Cheney's Prison camps..

Just like the Japanese Americans were Imprisoned during WWII.
Don't say it can't happen again to ALL Americans.


We really need to Vote these out of touch Gray haired, Rich "Holier Than Thou" types OUT !!

That is the only way in which we will see any form of Real Change.





www.democracynow.org...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Undertaker
 


While I don't think anyone with half a brain supports people who are capable of working sitting around getting #ed up all day on the dole, I feel compelled to point out that the reason that most illegal drugs cost enough for anyone to care about the percentage of UE funds going to pay for them is their black market status.

You really think someone on UE wouldn't grow their own weed if it were legal? Maybe even start selling it to get off of UE and start their own business? Opiates and illegal stimulants may not be healthy, esp. for those addicted to them, but the cost to the consumer comes from having to get the product past law enforcement and through the black market. It's not inherent to the substances themselves.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I've got no problems with this. I think if you're getting unemployment or welfare, you should be tested for drugs. If they want, make sure they aren't drunk when they pick up their check, too.

And testing Congress is an even better idea! I'm willing to bet the grunts and office workers have to do the piss test, but they Congresscritters themselves don't.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think that this is a good thing. I don't want somebody spending my hard earned money on drugs while they are on unemployment.


Perhaps you can explain exactly how someone would be spending YOUR money while they are on unemployment?

Those individuals have paid into the unemployment insurance fund...many have done this for years before getting laid off or outsourced....perhaps you should be more concerned with the fools from Wall St that caused this mess!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
I've got no problems with this. I think if you're getting unemployment or welfare, you should be tested for drugs. If they want, make sure they aren't drunk when they pick up their check, too.

And testing Congress is an even better idea! I'm willing to bet the grunts and office workers have to do the piss test, but they Congresscritters themselves don't.


Welfare I can quasi understand.

But please, do go into detail why people on unemployment should be tested for drugs. In addition, why are you qualified to tell others how to spend their money?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Shows you've never been unemployed.


Last time I was on UE was 9 years ago and the checks were mailed to my home address. I bet by now I could even get direct deposit.

You ever been *employed*? You'd think someone who could end up on UE tomorrow would know more about it.

I suppose you'd support having a gov't employee show up at the home of each recipient with a breathalyzer and/or urine sample cup and/or syringe for blood sample as well? 2x per month x every recipient in the country. Look at all the money that would be saved.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
But please, do go into detail why people on unemployment should be tested for drugs. In addition, why are you qualified to tell others how to spend their money?


Well, Ace, that money is also MY money, so I think I might have a right to say my piece about how it's spent. Not that the government ever listens to the peons, tho.

Why not the unemployed? Government employees are tested for drugs, and unemployed are getting tax dollars.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Release of Dallas Austin

Hatch assisted R&B producer Dallas Austin's release from Dubai following a conviction for drug possession.[17] On May 19, 2006 Austin was arrested for bringing coc aine into the city, but hours after a local court sentenced Austin to four years in prison before deportation, on July 4 Dubai ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum pardoned and released him. Hatch has "good relations with the ambassador and other good people in Dubai," said his office in a statement.


=================================

Drugs OK for rich music producers, but beer off-limits for some poor schlep who is out of work? bull#!

Keep in mind we're dealing with a Mormon from Utah here. He's just playing to his constituents and I'm appalled that anyone takes this seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join