I can't agree with that one Unemployment without cause is the predominate reason for eligibility for benefits and under this proposal, the registrant would again penalized without cause. Suppose there is a 60 y/o employee who has faithfully worked in the best interests of their employer for the past 40 years. The company suffers a downturn and decides to reduce it's workforce. The first to go are usually the elder workers and most expensive workers so the mass layoff is heavily weighted toward those 50 plus. Now this 60 y/o laid off worker is forced to pay for drug testing before they can collect the benefits for which their employer has been paying since the inception of unemployment benefits. Not right. The next thing you know the laid off workers will be required to be tested for tobacco or alcohol use before receiving their benefits. I suppose that is one way to reduce the unemployment rolls and increase the number of people relying on welfare benefits where no such regulation exists.
That proposal should require the individuals that failed both test to pay for them with court mandated community service. Why should those of us that do not use illicit chemicals be forced to pay after we pass the wiz quiz? Just by eleminating those that absolutely cannot pass a drug test will more than offset the entire cost of all required drug test of everyone.
what about the dishwasher option? give it to them as an option to either pay with cash or pay with service. Forcing people to do it, regardless, is not how America should work.
It seems that the few responders here view all people on unemployment as the sources of their own situation. We are not talking welfare here but short term, employer-funded, assistance while the person looks for another job. We have all know people who milk the unemployment system but there are far more who spend all their time and efforts in trying to secure employment. To group all the unemployed with the minority who are abuse the system is unfair and unwarranted.
If they were laid off it ought to free the first time. If they fail, or were fired they pay for the second one.
If they are fired for cause, they are not eligible to collect. The Labor Dept contacts the employer when a terminated employee makes a claim that will be charged against the employer's account. A hearing is held and the employer has the opportunity to defend their position that the employee is not be entitled to benefits. I have represented several employers who opposed granting benefits to an employee and we have usually won since the termination as "for cause" and the cause was documented. Not everyone who files for benefits is entitled to collect. However, if a person is laid off, terminated without cause, or has their hours reduced for a specific period of time, the person is entitled. Sometimes, as a result of a cash flow issue, an employer will cut hours from, as an example, 40 hrs to 30 hrs, for a period of a month. The employee is entitled to apply for prorated benefits for that period.
I have no beef with the drug test before being allowed benefits. I do believe it should be free. The reason the State can afford for it to be free, is because of the cost savings in not paying benefits to anyone who fails both test and retest and draws no benefits for 2 years. This cost savings alone will weed out the chaff from the grain and make the testing pay for itself.
I disagree with this.Unemployment taxes are paid both by the employee and the employer. WHile employed, the person supported countless unemployed with his part. I think all entitlement recipients should require drug testing but just because you choose to not use marijuana, why penalize the rest of us pot-heads? I fully intend to take up smoking dope soon as I can retire. WHen you start testing for booze too, I'll still object but not as strongly.
Well, then if they are going to do it, do it right. Every week, before you can get your employer paid unemployment check, you can pee in the cup. Of course, any other substance, even if legal, can be included as a definer of eligibility. No evening cigars allowed and of course, that beer you used to enjoy after mowing the lawn is just a memory. If you aren't employed, you aren't entitled to spend your benefits on anything but the essentials - food (no junk foods permitted) meat must be 90% fat free, milk low fat - heat but temperature must be kept below 65 degrees and cannot be sourced by a fossil fuel - gas (to go job hunting) may not be tolerated. It's either public transportation or electric car. Sorry but those of us with gas guzzling trucks are simply out of luck - medical attention, not to worry. The new universal health care system will make sure you die in a hospital, as quickly as possible please. In fact, why not go one step farther and eliminate unemployment benefits completely and have all terminated employees go directly to welfare. Eligibility is then determined by solely by household income. Every unemployed person can then be viewed equally as a lazy, drug dependent drain on society and their isn't any requirement to prove they are seeking employment. While we're at it, if it's such a good idea, lets extend it to social security benefits. Hey, we might really be on to some savings here.
It's a moot point anyways....... The Socialist Libtard Administration would never allow it as it would "Violate the Civil Rights" of their Welfare voter block.
Before they pass a law like this they should pass one requireing all welfare recepients pass a drug test before they could collect their muntly checks..
I'd go one further... ALL congress persons and senators must submit to a test for any and all foreign substances prior to any voting on any laws or bills! That would prove to be interesting.... I agree that ANYONE getting any assistance such as social security disability benefits for "depression", etc, should be required to take unscheduled tests. Being on disability myself, I have NO problems with it! Too many on the free ride which I have seen, that have NO disability other than pure laziness! They watch tv, smoke pot, drink like a fish, and live absolutley pointless lives at the expense of taxpayers. I think that needs to be remedied. I'd go back to work myself, IF any companies insurers would allow me into their buildings!
YES! Finally some truth and clarity. I don't mind testing unemployed who seek benefits (for narcotics), but MARIJUANA is NOT a drug!
Nothing personal intended as an insult but Righthand seems to understand this situation far better than anyone else , when you get in enough seniority that you're maxed out in vacation as well as your pay grade for the last couple of decades a GIANT target is on your back with many employers . I know I have been twice been laid off just to be told it was for lack of work yet when I went back to collect my last paycheck there is someone there doing my exact job but of course they are making several Dollars an hour less than I was and they don't have 3+ weeks of paid vacation not to mention benefits including company matched 401K etc. O and BTW there isn't a dang thing you can do about it folks .
Until you start sucking the federal (or state) nipple, you shouldn't be tested unless public safety is in question. As long as you are working and can support the habit without dot gov assistance, I have no problem. When those that are on public money want "luxuries" I'll choke on handing it out. It is that simple.
Tests can be passed by those who use. It happens every day on construction sites with mandatory testing requirements. It is no secret among the using community. Only those who are too stoned to remember where to go and what to buy will fail a drug test.
