Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[Palehorse]

Can't do that and you know it. You can't even be  sure your food is grown in America. I would rather have them submit to random drug tests.

OMG here is some toilet paper to wipe your face, obviously you've been dribbling shit again!!!

[Anne]

Drug tests are cheap, 10 to 15 dollars at the drug store. It isn't rocket science to read one. It wouldn't cost any more to pass that law than the one you talked about. I don't have a problem with unemployment, most everyone my kids age have drawn it at one time or another and a lot of people my age. But if we are going to attach more strings to it why not a drug test. It would be easier to track than how they spend the money.

[Anne]

OMG here is some toilet paper to wipe your face, obviously you've been dribbling shit again!!!

The devil made me do it!!!! 

[Palehorse]

Drug tests are cheap, 10 to 15 dollars at the drug store. It isn't rocket science to read one. It wouldn't cost any more to pass that law than the one you talked about. I don't have a problem with unemployment, most everyone my kids age have drawn it at one time or another and a lot of people my age. But if we are going to attach more strings to it why not a drug test. It would be easier to track than how they spend the money.

First of all, in order to legally use them to disqualify people / families from governmental programs, you'll have to use REAL drug tests and not those available in the drug store. Secondly, are you aware of the frequency of "false positives" that happen when you pee in a cup? Moreover, are you aware that those same false positives can be utilized to legally disqualify certain types of "drug tests", and that the only legally reliable testing available costs thousands of dollars per test, and more depending upon the type and method used.

And comparatively "it is not rocket science", it is something much more important than that, called medicine. That statement of yours alone proves you have absolutely no friggin idea WTF you are talking about, and that you are just parroting the party line you hear from the talking heads. . .

So, multiply the number of unemployed and individuals on public assistance by (conservatively) one thousand dollars and see how many millions of dollars you'd be willing to spend to test the VERY people who need a job most and are most likely to be drug free! Just seems to me that money would be better spent in trying to tide them over until they can find a job as opposed to vainly trying to find a way to disqualify them,put them out of their homes, and basically sentence them to a slow and painful death. . .

[The Troll]

Drug tests are cheap, 10 to 15 dollars at the drug store. It isn't rocket science to read one. It wouldn't cost any more to pass that law than the one you talked about. I don't have a problem with unemployment, most everyone my kids age have drawn it at one time or another and a lot of people my age. But if we are going to attach more strings to it why not a drug test. It would be easier to track than how they spend the money.

  Let's see $15 times 20 Million people, hell that's only $300 Million to give a stupid god damn test.  Anne your are out of your freaking mind.    Hell the Hawk doesn't have anything on you.     

[Anne]

Sorry, but I worked in the medical field and my daughter does too. Drug tests given for employment are extremely accurate, relatively cheap when bought in quanity and can be read by anyone with an IQ of 90. How much do you think it would cost to monitor what they spend their assistance money on? Troll wants them to only buy American made goods, how restrictive would that be? Give me a break. When it comes to medicine unless you are an emt, nurse or doctor don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

[Palehorse]

Sorry, but I worked in the medical field and my daughter does too. Drug tests given for employment are extremely accurate, relatively cheap when bought in quanity and can be read by anyone with an IQ of 90. How much do you think it would cost to monitor what they spend their assistance money on? Troll wants them to only buy American made goods, how restrictive would that be? Give me a break. When it comes to medicine unless you are an emt, nurse or doctor don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

You don't. Obviously.

I manufactured those very tests for years and worked on/with the analysers that are used for quantitative analysis of human blood, urine, fluids, and DNA. I KNOW for a fact that false positives are a HUGE problem with those pee cups, and the only acceptable means of establishing drug abuse or illegal substance abuse is via quantitative analysis of hair and fluids.

All those cups do is point to a POTENTIAL of substance abuse, and the presence of by products within the urine stream. A lot of times that presence is discovered to be legally explainable via quantitative analysis.

[Sandy Eggo]

Unemployment is something a worker payed into while they were working. It's not a taxpayer gift.  Why should they be required to pass a test get back money they've earned?

[Anne]

I have been in the medical field for several years and my daughter has worked in the field for 25 years, don't call me a liar. The urnalysis is used by DOT and many companies, they would not be used if they were not pretty accurate. Now if you manufactured rotten products that doesn't mean those were the ones that were used.

I wasn't the one who brought up tests for unemployment, Troll did. I never said I wanted more restrictions placed on unemployment, what I said was if you can read and understand what you read was that if they were going to place "tests" for unemployment a drug test would be my choice over monitoring what they spent their money on.

[LOsborne]

Unemployment is something a worker payed into while they were working. It's not a taxpayer gift. 

That may be true in California. But in Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee, unemployment insurance premiums are paid by the employer, not the employee. It still isn't a gift from the taxpayers, but the employee never paid into the fund.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=104985,00.html

That is why I fight benefits tooth and nail whenever they are claimed by those who quit, or were fired for cause.

Addressing Anne's point, I (or a staff member) administer pee tests weekly. They are fairly accurate. The literature that comes with them tells us we can expect between 5% and 7% false results. Most of those will be false negatives, because the amount of drug in the "testee's" system is close to the borderline. Marijuana stays in the system longest; meth, the shortest amount of time. Still, whenever I get a positive reading (and the person protests -- they don't always) I wait four or five hours and administer another one, figuring the odds of two tests being bad are neglible. After that, the prospective employee can pay for another test, and laboratory verification is he so desires. I have never (in the six years we've been testing everybody) had one come back false that I sent to the lab. But, I've talked to HR pukes who have had it happen.

That being said, I think requiring a drug test to collect unemployment benefits is draconian. The employee has earned those benefits by working. His lifestyle and choices outside the workplace are none of my business, and certainly none of the governments. After all, the government had no trouble accepting taxes from the employee while he was working -- no matter what he did on his own time -- and unemployment benefits are still taxable.

[Palehorse]

I have been in the medical field for several years and my daughter has worked in the field for 25 years, don't call me a liar. The urnalysis is used by DOT and many companies, they would not be used if they were not pretty accurate. Now if you manufactured rotten products that doesn't mean those were the ones that were used.

I wasn't the one who brought up tests for unemployment, Troll did. I never said I wanted more restrictions placed on unemployment, what I said was if you can read and understand what you read was that if they were going to place "tests" for unemployment a drug test would be my choice over monitoring what they spent their money on.

I never said you were a liar, but if the shoe fits. . . What I said was you don't know what you are talking about and do not understand the science that A) goes into one of those test cups, and B) is the difference between "urinalysis" and a test cup. Obviously you do not even know the difference between a test cup and urinalysis. BIG difference which is what I was saying in the first place. And a BIG difference in costs.

Lolly: that "5-7%" failure rate with test cup detection is actually 10-15%, but they'll never tell you that because if it were to get out the FDA would restrict their use, review their use and the science behind it, and most likely refuse to approve them.

The place I worked for did all of the urinalysis and test cups for the United States Government, military, and the USPS; among others. They sold off the test cup portion because, guess what, it is not accurate and they feared potential litigation that could or would result from it. The profit was not worth the risk.

And you had better hope they are not doing a shitty job because if you have had a blood test or any other diagnostic test that requires analysis of bodily fluids or DNA done in the past 15 years, their products were used in achieving those results. Had a lipid test done, heart test, BUN, prostate, chem screen, coagulation rate, glucose screen, or been tested to see if you have had a heart attack? You used them.

They are a shitty company though, because they are moving all of their manufacturing jobs from the US to Germany. . .

[Anne]

And if I said "test cup" who besides you would have known what I was talking about? Evidently their work with the "test cups" wasn't good or they would not have sold them off.

[Palehorse]

And if I said "test cup" who besides you would have known what I was talking about? Evidently their work with the "test cups" wasn't good or they would not have sold them off.

You are a lunatic if you believe that.

[The Troll]

That may be true in California. But in Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee, unemployment insurance premiums are paid by the employer, not the employee. It still isn't a gift from the taxpayers, but the employee never paid into the fund.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=104985,00.html

That is why I fight benefits tooth and nail whenever they are claimed by those who quit, or were fired for cause.

Addressing Anne's point, I (or a staff member) administer pee tests weekly. They are fairly accurate. The literature that comes with them tells us we can expect between 5% and 7% false results. Most of those will be false negatives, because the amount of drug in the "testee's" system is close to the borderline. Marijuana stays in the system longest; meth, the shortest amount of time. Still, whenever I get a positive reading (and the person protests -- they don't always) I wait four or five hours and administer another one, figuring the odds of two tests being bad are neglible. After that, the prospective employee can pay for another test, and laboratory verification is he so desires. I have never (in the six years we've been testing everybody) had one come back false that I sent to the lab. But, I've talked to HR pukes who have had it happen.

That being said, I think requiring a drug test to collect unemployment benefits is draconian. The employee has earned those benefits by working. His lifestyle and choices outside the workplace are none of my business, and certainly none of the governments. After all, the government had no trouble accepting taxes from the employee while he was working -- no matter what he did on his own time -- and unemployment benefits are still taxable.

  You say that you fight tooth and nail to keep someone who has been fired, to keep them from collecting an unemployment check.

  Then I take it that your company, when the need to lay someone off, you fire them so you don't have to pay unemployment.  In this bad economy there have been many companies that have pulled this trick.  My son was fire over something like this.  He was with them for 13 years and they fired him.  We fought the firing, they didn't protest or show up and he got his unemployment.  Might I add the rotten sonsofbitches, Lowes.

[LOsborne]

   Then I take it that your company, when the need to lay someone off, you fire them so you don't have to pay unemployment.

Why would you think that?

In this economy, many of our people have been laid off, or have had to take reduced hours, due to client cutbacks. These people need and deserve the unemployment benefits. We send their claim notices back immediately, marked "No challenge," even though they would get the benefits if we nothing. We mark them No Challenge so they will be expedited, and not have the ten-day waiting period attached.

When we fire people for cause -- for refusing to perform assigned duties, for being consistently late, for carrying a weapon without authorization, for blatant policy violations -- we see no reason to reward them with unemployment compensation. Too many people need it who deserve it to waste money on those who refuse to do what they were hired to do.

If your son's company didn't show up to protest his unemployment, why do you say that fought it?