BREAKING: U.S. Senate REVERSED Major Obama Law. He’s Reportedly FURIOUS!

[LonestarDream]

It's a form of social engineering.


This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.

Probably should mandate testing.  The US citizens are being asked to bail out CA, New York and MA

[LMAO]

This action is just saying it's up to states to decide btw. It's not mandating drug testing.

 A lot of the social welfare programs will probably eventually be  handed back to the states. As it should be

[Cyber Liberty]

It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job.  Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?

Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy.  The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.

[Jazzhead]

Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy.  The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.

Always gotta label and insult, don't you? 

[Cyber Liberty]

Always gotta label and insult, don't you?

If the shoe fits....

(For the record, Mr. Jazz, I did not call you an idiot, but you just did.)

[libertybele]

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job".    Why should an individual who lost his job for economic reasons - laid off because the employer's sales are down - have to satisfy a drug testing requirement to receive unemployment benefits?

I agree with you in part; I believe that those who have worked and are laid off and who are entitled to unemployment benefits should receive them period. HOWEVER, extended unemployment benefits (after benefits run out) should not be granted unless the applicant is willing to take a drug/alcohol test.

The real problem is JOBS!!  Thanks to Bammy our unemployment rate is still high and those who have been out of work for quite some time are going to find it difficult to find a job...the longer you're out of work the more difficult it is to find work.  Once President Trump gets this economy going and people are gainfully employed; I believe it would be prudent to set a cap on how long anyone can receive extended benefits.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Should folks who drink alcohol receive unemployment benefits?

The better question is why were are extending benefits in the first place.  Once one cuts off benefits to one group, one is open to adding other groups.  Should those convicted of felonies get benefits?  How about those not making child support payments?

Let's do away with the law that takes my money out of my pocket and pays it to someone who may or may not be willing to work.

[Bigun]

It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job.  Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?

Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy.  The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.

You're right and the benefits need to be reduced back to the original 13 weeks.  These perpetual unemployment checks are just another wealth transfer program. Welfare by another name!

[sneakypete]

The question wasn't stupid.   The purpose of the law appears to be punitive -  drug use is a disqualifier for unemployment benefits,  not whether an individual is "incapable of holding a job". 

@Jazzhead

Nice theory,but the reality is if he or she is still able to hold a job they wouldn't be applying for unemployment benefits.

[sneakypete]

Goalposts moved. However ...

Why should an employee have to satisfy drug testing to keep their job?

@EC

Some jobs SHOULD require drug testing. People that work for the government,for example should be drug-tested because until drug use is legazlied,which is scheduled to happen on the 43rd day of Never,being an addict can be used to blackmail them into betraying the public trust.

The guy that checks out bowling shoes at your local bowling alley,not so much.

However,any and every private employer has the right to demand drug tests as a requirement for employment if they want. This violates the privacy rights of no one,since people have a right to refuse to agree to work there.

[Jazzhead]

If the shoe fits....

(For the record, Mr. Jazz, I did not call you an idiot, but you just did.)

Grace does not appear to be an attribute that you possess.   

[sneakypete]

Not punitive.  Drug and alcohol use causes laziness.  They are also luxuries that beggars should not be choosing .

@LoneStar42

Laziness isn't the problem. Missing work,sloppy work,possibly endangering other employees,and theft are the problems.  Do you REALLY want a guy driving a forklift with a pallet of propane gas tanks on it riding around loading trucks that has been taking acid or magic mushrooms that day?

[sneakypete]

Very telling that the conservatives on this board are being told that we must pay for others drug and alcohol abuse. 
.

@LonestarDream

I'm a conservative. Where am I demanding that?

[sneakypete]

Exactly. There are good reasons for making sure people on the job are not impaired by various substances.

@EC

Illegal OR legal. Airline pilots are one example.

Now, since the goal of the person I was replying to is a "fair" society - surely it is unfair to have one standard for the employed and another standard for the unemployed. That would, after all, be prejudice.

What could be fairer than treating everyone the same way? Drunks aren't allowed to keep their jobs if they come to work drunk,so why should addicts of OTHER drugs?

Demanding EVERYONE come to work sober doesn't discriminate against anyone. To say it does is like saying the NBA is discriminating because there are no dwarf bb players in the NFL.

@EC

[Jazzhead]

However,any and every private employer has the right to demand drug tests as a requirement for employment if they want. This violates the privacy rights of no one,since people have a right to refuse to agree to work there.

I agree with this.  It's the employer's liability, and the employer's capital and reputation at risk. 

But, thinking back to another thread concerning the rights of employees and employers - should an employer be able to dictate that its employees not smoke and keep their weight down?   After all, healthier employees mean lower costs.  And what of employer requirements that affect what an employee does off the job?   Should an employer be able to require its employees, once hired, to be drug-tested at random without regard to present intoxication?     

[truth_seeker]

How about no testing for drugs or alcohol. UE benefits of two years, or even more.

Then go on Obamacare "rehab" several times. UE is a bargain for the taxpayers, compared to the cost of the "recovery" and "treatment" programs.

Insurance under Obamacare MUST provide for such "treatment," which flies you to luxury resort places like Malibu.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/addiction-treatment-vulnerable-with-likely-obamacare-repeal/

Hint: Before the expansion of the "for profit" treatment-recovery industry, thanks to Obamacare, people did recover none the less. AA is for free and for fun.

[sneakypete]

I don't disagree with trump/senate on this. The more the states decide the better.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

You mean going restoring States Rights and going back to the way our government is SUPPOSED to be ran and controlled?

What a novel idea!

Sadly,it will never fly in the 21st Century.

[sneakypete]

A lot of the social welfare programs will probably eventually be  handed back to the states.

NOT going to happen. EVER. "Caesar" is NEVER going to voluntarily give up his power.

As it should be

I have no argument with that. These powers should have never been taken away from the individual states to start with.

[sneakypete]

Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy.  The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.

Say WHAT????? If anything,it is the height of sanity. It is NOT the place for private companies,or even government agencies to determine what is legal or illegal to consume,but private companies do indeed have the RIGHT to determine what substances can be consumed on the job,or that their employees can come to work with while they are under the influence of those substances.

Or are you trying to claim that alcohol consumption doesn't alter your thinking,actions,or physical abilities?

And even your public personality,as far as that goes.

[LonestarDream]

+ 1

It's my understanding unemployment is meant to bridge a temporary cash shortfall for the person who lost a job, to be ended when the person gets another job.  Getting on illegal drugs would make getting rehired difficult because a lot of employers do pre-job drug screens, so if the state is serious about keeping unemployment a temporary assistance program, there's an interest in keeping a person employable, right?

Treating illegal drugs the same as legal alcohol is the height of idiocy.  The sort of thing I've come to expect of leftists who can't tell the difference between the two.

[sneakypete]

Probably should mandate testing.  The US citizens are being asked to bail out CA, New York and MA

@LonestarDream

Yeah,why not GIVE the feral government even MORE power and authority over our lives,and the lives of the people who employ us or work for us?

[sneakypete]

I agree with this.  It's the employer's liability, and the employer's capital and reputation at risk. 

But, thinking back to another thread concerning the rights of employees and employers - should an employer be able to dictate that its employees not smoke and keep their weight down?   After all, healthier employees mean lower costs.  And what of employer requirements that affect what an employee does off the job?   Should an employer be able to require its employees, once hired, to be drug-tested at random without regard to present intoxication?   

@Jazzhead ,IMO,they have a right to demand any damn thing they want from NEW hires as a condition of employment,but not to shape-shift to penalize employees already employed by them. ESPECIALLY not employees who are nearing retirement age.

I had a neighbor whose father worked as a store manager for a major food store chain back in the 50's and 60's,and they fired him for being a alcoholic less than a year before he had the time in to retire with a pension and health benefits. I should note here that he was a functioning alcoholic. I lived right next door to them when I was a kid,and never noticed a thing other than him being a grumpy bleep and dictator at home. His wife and son seemed to be scared of him,but he was always friendly and smiling at customers at work. My mother used to shop at that grocery store,and she would take me with her to carry the bags and help her.

[LonestarDream]

@LoneStar42

Laziness isn't the problem. Missing work,sloppy work,possibly endangering other employees,and theft are the problems.  Do you REALLY want a guy driving a forklift with a pallet of propane gas tanks on it riding around loading trucks that has been taking acid or magic mushrooms that day?

Level of motivation, safety and public trust are ALL reasons to wary of subsidizing drug use.

[LonestarDream]

@LonestarDream

I'm a conservative. Where am I demanding that?

I amend my comments to some conservatives on the board -  since more folks are participating in these discussions. 

[Frank Cannon]

Surprised anyone would be against this. Actually not with all the dedicated Leftists on this board.