Open letter from a rig worker..............urine tests..................benefits

reply to post by boncho


I think you may have missed the point my friend

May I suggest you read the whole thread thus far.

But thanks for taking the time to reply

Cody

reply to post by cody599


You come back to the point this always comes back to for the debate and, honestly, it's the part I cannot disagree with. There exists a % within this nation, and has for a few decades now at least, who take benefits as their way of "making a living". Ask them to find a job and they'll reply that IS their job, while more than a few will show signs of a brand new pregnancy while saying it. Those are definitely the hard core oxygen thieves in society. I think that is the type we may both mean by absolutely necessary reform for this whole system.

My issue is two fold though.

* First, for as bad as life is for the kids under those parents now, what will removing the benefits do? Are we honestly expecting that to make life better? Unfortunately, it's a situation we're all liable for as well. We've all watched while the programs have built, expanded and been made as user friendly and warm to the touch as Government could make them. At the demand of a good portion of the population. We can't very well, overnight, chop those who were (IN PART) lulled into this zombie like existence of living just to live.

The only way we COULD do that and not be monsters in the process, makes us all monsters in a far worse way, to my thinking. We, as a society, would have to take the kids by force, if needed, and hold them in state custody ..while the rejection of support to the parents insured their final spiral into destruction. The kids didn't deserve the implosion such tough love would often lead to. The alternative is to sentence the children to the same fate you admit not having a solution for with the adults.

* Second, the U.S. has, by some measures, never been worse off than it is right now. Whatever hope anyone had reason to feel recently for unemployment was pretty well crashed a few days ago when the number dropped (YAY!) but dropped because more people gave up the hunt for lack of work entirely. (Boo!) Even a dropping unemployment number is a BAD news item in this economy, for how screwed up it's become. (That takes some doing, really!)

Reform, as we both agree must come, must either come when the nation is in some position of stability to at least stop adding new, legitimately needy people to the rolls daily ...Or, not at all. If we never reach the point of stability, after all, taking harsh action before that will only hasten the overall national fall, with more violence than it may otherwise have had, IMO.

Kody27

Pladuim

Kody27
reply to post by cody599

 

Drug tests are for the companies' liability. It benefits them to have sober workers.

Drug tests for welfare participants would cost too much, and there are no individual companies that would pay for them like job related tests.

So, the amount of money saved by not distributing it to drug addicts is probably equal to the amount of money needed to be spent on the tests themselves. There's really a neutral return for the only benefactor in the whole equation, the Government.

Alot of work, and a neutral return. You really think that's gonna happen?

Besides, didn't you see Florida try out the welfare drug test experiment? Only 1% of welfare participants in the entire state actually failed the tests.

Fail.

Yea, because a big percentage knows how to cheat the test. Urine test are very easy to beat. I'd guarantee those results would be different if hair samples was used.

No, you fail.

Pladuim

Because pee tests are cheap and hair tests are very expensive. Who's gonna pay for those again?
And what exactly is gonna offset the costs? Where is the incentive for the Government again?

[snip]

[snip]

Where did I say that we should use hair samples instead of urine samples. Where did I even say we should even test people? I was just pointing out that your Florida example is well flawed and not a very good example to use.

You really failed again!

How about we start in Mexico and treat anyone supplying illegal drugs in this country as terrorists. Aren't they killing more people and ruining lives more than the radical Muslims?

Pladuim

reply to post by wrabbit2000


I would have to argue that the kids here are the most important thing,

Around where I live the state would give them square meals, education and support, as much as I hate the thought it used to make my blood boil to talk to my wife's pupils in her old school

On parents evening I'd go across to help out.

Kids would turn up and their parents would 'forget' or be 'too busy' to be there

When my wife left (for ridiculous idiocy of nanny state rules) we went to say goodbye to the friends we had made.

Much to my surprise the kids that cried the most were the least well behaved.

I remember one young man surreptitiously pulling my wife aside and asking

"Miss who will tell me when I'm out of order when you leave ?"

Heartbreaking

Cody

reply to post by cody599

[snip]


If some one wants to do drugs they are gonna do them, no sort of test is going to stop that, and yes they will still get benefits.

most everything else they test for leaves the system relatively quick and so what will happen is you will see these people being tested for drugs taking cleansers and taking a break from there habit a couple days before the test.
and then another 28 days a month be back on one. Sure you will catch a couple, and that will open up space and money for someone that is good at cheating the system.

blood and hair tests are thrown out the window, One, they cost way to much. Two if hair tests are done, how many will shave there entire body before the test and say its for some religious reason, or medical reason? I can see someone saying ..."there was a lice infestation at my house so to take preemptive measures I shaved my body and hair...." is it illegal to shave your body? not were im from.

Blood test? its a possibly, if you want to spend even more tax dollars than you are now and again it takes a couple days to clean up.

now the real issue, who has the right to tell us what we can and can not do? Who has the right to take our urine, our blood , our hair without our consent. Mandatory drug tests are a complete invasion of privacy.

In an ever changing world were our purchases are tracked, our emails read, our posts filed away, our searches documented, our faces on camera everywhere, our finger prints filed, our gps phones going everywhere we go , our entertainment consoles watching and listening to us in our homes, I value the little privacy we have left.


why is cool for people to be loaded up with pain killers, muscle relaxers, amphetamines, sleeping pills, and magic pills that make you happy but if you go out get things that have the same effect as the aforementioned prescription drugs all the sudden its not ok?

it boils down that drug tests are just another form of control the the leaders of society are forcing upon us. Why there doing it, to what end, is another thread altogether

Thats another thing, the people writing these laws and forcing these tests should have to take the same tests, why are peasants only subject to testing? I bet the next time congress, or parliament got together for a session and they were all drug tested on the spot, many would have to find new jobs.

In conclusion if people on welfare we tested to get money, it wouldn't change anything. So there is no point, and the whole drug testing thing is a farce anyway so the less drug tests the better.

reply to post by DocHolidaze


By your way of thinking; if I read correctly

To fail a drug test is a sign the gov't aren't trying hard enough

Interesting
Eta

My apologies

I've just re read your post. I'm a little less paranoid on the gov't tracking bit, my army record is there for all to see, my movements there to track, my purchases open to scrutiny.




Cody

cody599
reply to post by Kody27

 

Well with all due respect
I don't live in Florida, I live in a deprived area north of London with plenty of unemployment, I am lucky enough to have a job as is my wife.

I can count on one hand the amount of people that work for a living in 3 blocks of flats (around 60 adults)
But those that don't work always have enough money for alcohol, cigarettes and various other things.

Benefits are supposed you help you survive NOT be able to afford aforementioned.

When I get home from work I can guarantee to see drunks etc. that have not worked since I moved here 8 years ago

Something has to be done

Cody

AMEN! I agree 100% with your post. If my hours got cut, or I lost my job, I would have to give up some of my luxuries...alcohol, cigarettes, cell phone, internet, cable. Here in the good ol' USA, most welfare recipients have internet, cable, cell phones, can smoke or drink, and are able to have freezers with more food than I.

I work. My husband works. My kid works and goes to college full time.

It really fries my arse.

cody599
reply to post by InkontinentiaBouquet

 

It isn't about losing freedoms

It's about the state not rewarding for not making any effort to contribute to society

Cody

something you may wish to consider,
my dear fellow, take away their benefits
and those people you see daily in a stupor,
having been deprived of their Soma,
may very well resort mugging you to pay for their vices.

or your wife.

hmmmmmm?

reply to post by Kody27


Actually I've seen police stations handing out boxes of them because they go "outdated" witch I'm pretty sure they don't because I got one of them that was four years out of date and it worked fine also the dip stick pee tests are very cheap the amount saved would most likely surpass the amount of people who like to spend there benefit checks on drugs but I do believe it's understandable if a person is disabled and on their own they should have some comforts.

reply to post by Cheesy459


Why couldn't we just put a cheque writing machine out on the street , down town, and anybody with
a social insurance card could print one up, monthly, if they needed sustenance?
Then we coud fire all the highly paid government workers and turn the buildings to social housing units.
We would save money.......

reply to post by TheMagus


I get your point and it is far from a perfect answer, of course kinks would have to be worked out.

I'm really not concerned on a personal level for my safety however, my rep goes before me so to speak, and my wife is highly trained by myself in self defence techniques (as a teacher of teenagers I considered it essential for her to learn for her safety)

I just get sick of seeing these people with brand new cell phones, 42 inch TV's, etc etc etc.

Benefits should not be large enough for luxuries IMHO

I once had an argument on ATS with a guy on the benefit system here in Britain, long story short. He couldn't understand that being able to post on ATS is not an essential, but a luxury, and when I suggested that maybe if he spent as much time looking for work as he did posting here.......... well it wasn't a pretty answer.

Cody

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Doc

As always you put forward many valid points, and as always I value your input into any of my threads.

It was remiss of me to not place a disclaimer in my OP that this is more about the principal the actuality of state funded alcoholism etc.

And as you so rightly stated this should not be just for the peasants, I would love for our leaders to be tested first, after all with the decisions they make on a daily basis one has to wonder what the hell is going on in their minds ? . Moreover as our duly elected leaders I would say it is our right to be reassured that they are of good character and sound of mind.

As I stated It's more about the principal.

Cody

cody599
reply to post by InkontinentiaBouquet

 

It isn't about losing freedoms

It's about the state not rewarding for not making any effort to contribute to society

Cody

The state has nothing to do with this. Companies drug test to cover their own ass in a lawsuit in case some stoner causes an accident. If this guy has such a problem with the tests then find a job that doesn't require them. He knew he had to take these tests when he got the job now he wants to cry about it. He's just another whiner crying about the position he put himself in.

reply to post by buster2010

The state has nothing to do with this. Companies drug test to cover their own ass in a lawsuit in case some stoner causes an accident. If this guy has such a problem with the tests then find a job that doesn't require them. He knew he had to take these tests when he got the job now he wants to cry about it. He's just another whiner crying about the position he put himself in.

Did you actually read the OP ?

I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

Cody

cody599
reply to post by buster2010

 

The state has nothing to do with this. Companies drug test to cover their own ass in a lawsuit in case some stoner causes an accident. If this guy has such a problem with the tests then find a job that doesn't require them. He knew he had to take these tests when he got the job now he wants to cry about it. He's just another whiner crying about the position he put himself in.

Did you actually read the OP ?

I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

Cody

edit on 14/9/13 by cody599 because: (no reason given)

Yes I did read it. And he is crying he has to take a piss test for his job. Then he whines about other crap to cover it up. And the government isn't making him take the test his job is so maybe you should reread the article.

reply to post by cody599


Would be good to see the governments get tested. I think we would see a change in a few laws then...

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking

Not sure if I agree with that though.. Peeps that drink and smoke pay a lot of tax to the state.. Unless they make their own..

The war being wagged on drugs is a war on humanity and it is used to vilify the common man. There are a lot of threads these days about vilifying people sitting around doing nothing but claiming benefits.
Nor would it save any money. If you cut drug addicts from their only source of income they turn to crime.. How is that saving money..

buster2010

cody599
reply to post by buster2010

 

The state has nothing to do with this. Companies drug test to cover their own ass in a lawsuit in case some stoner causes an accident. If this guy has such a problem with the tests then find a job that doesn't require them. He knew he had to take these tests when he got the job now he wants to cry about it. He's just another whiner crying about the position he put himself in.

Did you actually read the OP ?

I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

Cody

edit on 14/9/13 by cody599 because: (no reason given)

Yes I did read it. And he is crying he has to take a piss test for his job. Then he whines about other crap to cover it up. And the government isn't making him take the test his job is so maybe you should reread the article.

WOOHOO!!! Amen Brother!!!

I used to work for a utility company, albeit in the IT department. As an HQ employee and not union, I was considered to be management. As a result, management was expected to face the same random urine tests that the workers on the gas lines were expected to take.

I agree that it is entirely likely that this roughneck, or whatever position he holds on the rig,is complaining as a tactic to avoid the idea that he simply doesn't want to deal with the fact that as part of his job, safety is of high concern, and therefore, he is required to get urine tested on a regular basis.

Some rig/driller companies don't take this as seriously as others.

Some don't take safety into much consideration at all. Look at Trans Ocean as the driller in the Gulf of Mexico explosion where they were under contract to BP. And they've done SUCH a wonderful job of cleaning up after their little mistake, now haven't they?

This person is putting the lives of others at risk by potentially dangerous actions he COULD take. The urine test is there for the safety of others.

The other rig workers. The people who might have to go and save them. The people who rely on the flow of oil as a livelyhood from that rig. The aquatic life of that region, of the entire face of the earth (pee in one corner of a pool, wait a while, taste the water at the other end...go ahead..), and inevitably, every single person on the face of this earth could be impacted by whether or not this person is urine tested. We have done much to destroy our food chain as it is. Let's try not to do much more damage, as I'd hate to see what additional dire circumstances ala Fukushima could befall our fragile existance.

But hey, at best, this guy bemoans people on public aid not having to be urine tested because he himself has to be urine tested and contributes to their income. At worst, because he simply wants to get high for personal pleasure or to not feel the rigors of the job quite so much.

Sorry, I just don't feel a ton of sympathy for this guy. Sack up, pal



- SN

reply to post by cody599


I understand what your saying, I myself have not been able to find a steady job for awhile now and I find myself on unemployment more often than not, which I have been paying into since I was 14 btw. My roommate has been working 5 days a week for the past 7 years.

He also gets frustrated,because he works everyday and I don't. He will come home at certain times and see me posting a way with a cold cheap beer next to me(I don't spend more than 3 bucks a day on beer, I don't like to get drunk on the reg, just refreshed) and he thinks I don't do anything and I am sponging of the system, even though i have been paying into unemployment since he was being a juvenile delinquent in middle school. I wonder how much of my tax dollars went to support him while he was being a bad kid.(by the way, the system worked for him he is a working stiff now)

When in fact I am actively searching for work . Problem is, work is hard to find, and without my entitled benefits I would not be able to support myself, support my kids , or have my two beers a day that help me get through the stresses of trying to live in a county that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state( its near mexico and full of college students who will work for cheap because there mommy and daddy pays the bills, the college kids just work for beer money.)

I know unemployment is different than welfare, but when you have been working for so long it feels like the same thing, and maybe I should save 75 dollars a month so maybe I can put some money aside and try and start my own business, but i will tell you when work is harder to find than a three legged cat named jenkins, a cold beer is nice. And a cigarette at the end of day is soothing.

I do not condone people taking advantage of the welfare system, but I will not knock the simple pleasures of this life. So I am at a crossroads. Do I condone the same pleasures that I find appealing no matter what provides there income,as not to be a hippocrate or do I shun people that were born into a system not created by them, not created for them, a system that was meant to keep the workers alive so the leaders can live comfortably.

A system that was ment divide us into groups. Dark. light. Straight. Gay. Rich. Middle class. Poor. This religion. that religion. Left. Right. Beautiful. Ugly. This nation. That nation.

It feels like I can go into a long rant that has nothing to do with urine tests. So I will end with this. I truly don't know what to think about this issue, but I do know these people that are looked down upon because the very system ALL OF US have allowed to prosper, will not change, unless You, and I, and Joe welfare drunk face stand to together and make that change. So maybe instead of shunning them we should extend our hands in unity.

and btw way cody I always enjoy your threads, they are for the most part a breath of fresh air in gloomy ats world, stay up brother

it must be a lot easier down you'r way cody everyone i speak to on benefits is getting them stopped or sanctioned and a lot of people are getting hit with the bedoom tax .

one of the few times i signed on i waited 6 weeks to be told sorry sir you are self employed and it is you'r job that is considered seasonal xxxx i am a painter some divvy in goverment decided a painter and gardener are seasonal jobs them she said wow you pay more in tax than i earn a month.

at the time i was paying £1400 per month in tax only to be told i was not entitled to benefits never again will i be told by some pen pusher what to do .

it is annoying to watch the unwashed running around in new cars etc when most of them have never done a hard days graft in their lives .

i retired at 42 and do not want anything to do with goverment that is the best way grow what i want do what i want fxxx big brother