- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
10 Dec 11
In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by TerrierJackIf you show up for work under the influence, you ought to be canned. Other than that I don't see any employer interest in drug use or government issue with it either.
In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
The issue is can you work. If you show up high or inebriated, the answer is probably no.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by normbenignSo you are so saying that you should not have to be tested to receive unemployment benefits? How about Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid? Why should my tax dollars go to your Social Security check if you are going to sit around high all day? Do you think you have a right to government money if you're going to use it to purchase drugs?
If you show up for work under the influence, you ought to be canned. Other than that I don't see any employer interest in drug use or government issue with it either.
The issue is can you work. If you show up high or inebriated, the answer is probably no.
10 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackI'm not sure how it works with retail politics in the U.S., but if this announcement/proposal had been made in the U.K. by the equivalent political entity, it would have little or nothing to do with the drug tests themselves, and everything to do with inserting - into the public domain, tabloidlike - the notion, the insinuation, that the high level of unemployment is perhaps caused by undeserving people spending money on drugs and loafing around, too high to work, rather than by problems with the economy and the performance of politicians.
In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
10 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYeah, Republican politicians are saying that long-suffering businessmen report that half of those showing up for interviews can't pass drug tests. If that is true then surely we should extend testing to every level of government interaction. Why should you be issued a driver's license if you test positive for drugs? Why should you get government assistance of any kind without being tested?
I'm not sure how it works with retail politics in the U.S., but if this announcement/proposal had been made in the U.K. by the equivalent political entity, it would have little or nothing to do with the drug tests themselves, and everything to do with inserting - into the public domain, tabloidlike - the notion, the insinuation, that the high level of unemployme ...[text shortened]... too high to work, rather than by problems with the economy and the performance of politicians.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by TerrierJackI think we should start by having posters from RHP drug tested first.
In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
How about it?
10 Dec 11
No, because using drugs is not necessarily an inhibition for working or finding work. Besides, adding up all those who occasionally (or more frequently) use alcohol, cannabis or caffeine already gives you nearly all the unemployed (or employed for that matter) so it would just be an excuse to cut benefits.
A better idea is to have the government provide mandatory jobs for the long-term unemployed, and cut benefits in case they don't show up.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut why should the government give you cash if you are only going to use to buy drugs?
No, because using drugs is not necessarily an inhibition for working or finding work. Besides, adding up all those who occasionally (or more frequently) use alcohol, cannabis or caffeine already gives you nearly all the unemployed (or employed for that matter) so it would just be an excuse to cut benefits.
A better idea is to have the government provide mandatory jobs for the long-term unemployed, and cut benefits in case they don't show up.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97453
10 Dec 11
Yes I think so. Most employers now have mandatory drug testing for newly hired employees. If someone is un-employed you would have to assume they are at least looking for a new job, one that would require a drug test, which they would need to pass to get off unemployment.