Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[jkapp]

Jan 4, 2014 22:27:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 21:25:09 GMT -5 jkapp said:

If we deduct the test from the welfare check, it costs us nothing more than what we would have already been spending.

that makes sense, economically.  but have you thought it through?

your average welfare recipient gets $160/month.  a pee test is $40.

so, you are suggesting that 97.4% of welfare recipients should take a 25% cut in their check to pay for a test that they will pass?

this seems like basically kicking people who are down to me.  is that what you had in mind?

Or you could look at it as making sure people are living up to the social contract?

Personally, I don't see any difference in punishing people who are responsible, made good choices, and became successful with taxes and legislation (like the ACA).  I'm sure its not what certain people have in mind when they call for such things, but its what ends up happening.  A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

[jkapp]

Jan 4, 2014 22:29:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 22:08:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hmm.  So, someone who doesn't take drugs and hasn't taken drugs is to be required to pay $30 to prove they don't take drugs and haven't taken drugs?  How about we stop you on the highway and charge you $30 to prove you don't speed, and haven't sped?  My taxes are going into that highway and you're making it less safe by speeding!  I just know you are!

how about this: your boss makes you pay for your pee test?
or, if you are on social security: you have to take a pee test- AND PASS IT- before they will give you your check.

is there no limit to the pettiness and cruelty of the the self-righteous taxpayer?

How is that any different than means-testing the benefits AFTER people have paid into it for 20+ years?  IMO thats just as cruel and self-righteous on the part of the "greater good" crowd.

[mmhmm]

Jan 4, 2014 22:29:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 22:08:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hmm.  So, someone who doesn't take drugs and hasn't taken drugs is to be required to pay $30 to prove they don't take drugs and haven't taken drugs?  How about we stop you on the highway and charge you $30 to prove you don't speed, and haven't sped?  My taxes are going into that highway and you're making it less safe by speeding!  I just know you are!

how about this: your boss makes you pay for your pee test?
or, if you are on social security: you have to take a pee test- AND PASS IT- before they will give you your check.

is there no limit to the pettiness and cruelty of the the self-righteous taxpayer?

Ain't that the livin' truth!  Sometimes, I find myself just sitting here, mouth agape, wondering how in the heck some folks think the way they do.  I feel so fortunate.  I have, and have had, so much while some have, and have had so very little.  We're all people.  I was fortunate to have been born with a lot going for me.  It didn't take me long to realize that wasn't true for everyone.  It didn't take much longer to figure out just how much those unearned, pure gifts were worth.  From that, it's not difficult to extrapolate why it makes sense to give back without a whimper.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 23:30:09 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 4, 2014 22:29:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how about this: your boss makes you pay for your pee test?
or, if you are on social security: you have to take a pee test- AND PASS IT- before they will give you your check.

is there no limit to the pettiness and cruelty of the the self-righteous taxpayer?

How is that any different than means-testing the benefits AFTER people have paid into it for 20+ years? 

i think it is significantly different.  denying benefits is not an invasion of privacy.  peeing in a jar is. 
for the record, i no longer support means testing.  i think it is smart policy, but it shifts the debate
on SS in a way that i think ruins the system.

IMO thats just as cruel and self-righteous on the part of the "greater good" crowd.

preaching to the choir.  but i still think the situations are wildly different.

[mmhmm]

Jan 4, 2014 23:30:09 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 4, 2014 22:29:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how about this: your boss makes you pay for your pee test?
or, if you are on social security: you have to take a pee test- AND PASS IT- before they will give you your check.

is there no limit to the pettiness and cruelty of the the self-righteous taxpayer?

How is that any different than means-testing the benefits AFTER people have paid into it for 20+ years?  IMO thats just as cruel and self-righteous on the part of the "greater good" crowd.

I don't mind the idea of means testing one little bit.  Then again, even though I may have paid into it for a good deal more than 20 years, I never did so with the idea it was all about ME.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2014 23:28:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 4, 2014 22:27:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that makes sense, economically.  but have you thought it through?

your average welfare recipient gets $160/month.  a pee test is $40.

so, you are suggesting that 97.4% of welfare recipients should take a 25% cut in their check to pay for a test that they will pass?

this seems like basically kicking people who are down to me.  is that what you had in mind?

Or you could look at it as making sure people are living up to the social contract?

everyone who is a citizen is part of the social contract.  this includes kids who have never worked.  you don't have to "live up" to anything, as i have pointed out to Paul many times.  however, you are in for a very rough time of things if you don't.

Personally, I don't see any difference in punishing people who are responsible, made good choices, and became successful with taxes and legislation (like the ACA).  I'm sure its not what certain people have in mind when they call for such things, but its what ends up happening.  A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

dumb idea.  in order to make testing work, it would have to be done on a much tighter interval than that.  if you want to drug test you will have to do it no less often than once a month, otherwise, you are not going to get 2.6%, you are going to get 0.26%, and your savings will cover less than 5% of your costs, rather than around half.  no, if you are going to violate people and spend money, at least do it right.

[mmhmm]

A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair dealt for free money...

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

It is always interesting to see the postings plummet in number late in the afternoon, which tells me most folks are posting from work on their employer's dime and time.

The response will be 'I got the day's work done early'.  Well if you got the work done early, then you do not have enough work to earn your keep.  Ask your supervisor for more work (like that is ever going to happen).  If you are a business owner, or retired,  have at it.  Most posters are not business owners or retired.

Some folks would receive paycheck of zero dollars if an employer charged a dollar for each letter typed in message board post, or anything else not work related, during the time they were supposed to be working.  Employers should probably install software programs to follow employee keystrokes on company computers.  No less invasive than having to initially, and then randomly, pee for welfare assistance.

[mtman]

Jan 5, 2014 9:34:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

It is always interesting to see the postings plummet in number late in the afternoon, which tells me most folks are posting from work on their employer's dime and time.

The response will be 'I got the day's work done early'.  Well if you got the work done early, then you do not have enough work to earn your keep.  Ask your supervisor for more work (like that is ever going to happen).  If you are a business owner, or retired,  have at it.  Most posters are not business owners or retired.

Some folks would receive paycheck of zero dollars if an employer charged a dollar for each letter typed in message board post, or anything else not work related, during the time they were supposed to be working.  Employers should probably install software programs to follow employee keystrokes on company computers.  No less invasive than having to initially, and then randomly, pee for welfare assistance.

You're comparing apples to oranges.....people using employer time to be on message boards is inappropriate.....people using drugs is illegal.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 12:33:05 GMT -5 mtman said:

Jan 5, 2014 9:34:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It is always interesting to see the postings plummet in number late in the afternoon, which tells me most folks are posting from work on their employer's dime and time.

The response will be 'I got the day's work done early'.  Well if you got the work done early, then you do not have enough work to earn your keep.  Ask your supervisor for more work (like that is ever going to happen).  If you are a business owner, or retired,  have at it.  Most posters are not business owners or retired.

Some folks would receive paycheck of zero dollars if an employer charged a dollar for each letter typed in message board post, or anything else not work related, during the time they were supposed to be working.  Employers should probably install software programs to follow employee keystrokes on company computers.  No less invasive than having to initially, and then randomly, pee for welfare assistance.

You're comparing apples to oranges.....people using employer time to be on message boards is inappropriate.....people using drugs is illegal.

Employees are stealing ìncome from their employers.

[jkapp]

Jan 5, 2014 1:14:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2014 23:28:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Or you could look at it as making sure people are living up to the social contract?

everyone who is a citizen is part of the social contract.  this includes kids who have never worked.  you don't have to "live up" to anything, as i have pointed out to Paul many times.  however, you are in for a very rough time of things if you don't.

Personally, I don't see any difference in punishing people who are responsible, made good choices, and became successful with taxes and legislation (like the ACA).  I'm sure its not what certain people have in mind when they call for such things, but its what ends up happening.  A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

dumb idea.  in order to make testing work, it would have to be done on a much tighter interval than that.  if you want to drug test you will have to do it no less often than once a month, otherwise, you are not going to get 2.6%, you are going to get 0.26%, and your savings will cover less than 5% of your costs, rather than around half.  no, if you are going to violate people and spend money, at least do it right.

OK, that's fine with me...just deduct 6% from each check to cover monthly tests. You can't really be against that since someone who works a job and EARNS $160 a week is paying 6.2% in SS tax.  I notice you don't mind THAT person taking a pay cut for money they actually worked for...

[Sum Dum Gai]

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

My boss knows I play on the internet at work. He's cool with it.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 13:01:52 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

My boss knows I play on the internet at work. He's cool with it.

  Yeah, but your boss is pretty cool about most things, isn't he?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 12:51:37 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 5, 2014 1:14:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dumb idea.  in order to make testing work, it would have to be done on a much tighter interval than that.  if you want to drug test you will have to do it no less often than once a month, otherwise, you are not going to get 2.6%, you are going to get 0.26%, and your savings will cover less than 5% of your costs, rather than around half.  no, if you are going to violate people and spend money, at least do it right.

OK, that's fine with me...just deduct 6% from each check to cover monthly tests.

the average "check" is $160.  the average "test" is $40- and that does not include administration fees for evaluating the test.  that is 25%, not 6%.  i already stated that, in post #88.  but there is the further injustice of charging that 25% tax to 97.4% of the recipient population for the actions of 2.6%.  you seem to be ok with that, but i really can't fathom why.

You can't really be against that since someone who works a job and EARNS $160 a week is paying 6.2% in SS tax.  I notice you don't mind THAT person taking a pay cut for money they actually worked for...

i am not against your red herring, no.  but i am very much against the reality.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 12:33:05 GMT -5 mtman said:

Jan 5, 2014 9:34:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It is always interesting to see the postings plummet in number late in the afternoon, which tells me most folks are posting from work on their employer's dime and time.

The response will be 'I got the day's work done early'.  Well if you got the work done early, then you do not have enough work to earn your keep.  Ask your supervisor for more work (like that is ever going to happen).  If you are a business owner, or retired,  have at it.  Most posters are not business owners or retired.

Some folks would receive paycheck of zero dollars if an employer charged a dollar for each letter typed in message board post, or anything else not work related, during the time they were supposed to be working.  Employers should probably install software programs to follow employee keystrokes on company computers.  No less invasive than having to initially, and then randomly, pee for welfare assistance.

You're comparing apples to oranges.....people using employer time to be on message boards is inappropriate.....people using drugs is illegal.

so, this really is a moral argument for you.  you are saying "i don't want my money supporting illegal activity".  well, then all employees should be piss tested, since 9% of the adult population uses drugs.  and when they are unemployed, they will be on welfare, where a piss test will kick them off the roles again.  that will eventually lead to prison, where the 30M people who casually use illegal drugs will end up.  we will pay $4,000/month to incarcerate them, rather than $160/month for them to be on welfare, or $2,000/month for them to be gainfully employed.  and you seem perfectly content with that. 

but i am not.  i would rather move to some enlightened place than deal with that nightmare.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 13:24:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 12:33:05 GMT -5 mtman said:

You're comparing apples to oranges.....people using employer time to be on message boards is inappropriate.....people using drugs is illegal.

so, this really is a moral argument for you.  you are saying "i don't want my money supporting illegal activity".  well, then all employees should be piss tested, since 9% of the adult population uses drugs.  and when they are unemployed, they will be on welfare, where a piss test will kick them off the roles again.  that will eventually lead to prison, where the 30M people who casually use illegal drugs will end up.  we will pay $4,000/month to incarcerate them, rather than $160/month for them to be on welfare, or $2,000/month for them to be gainfully employed.  and you seem perfectly content with that. 

but i am not.  i would rather move to some enlightened place than deal with that nightmare.

Exactly what I was going for, dj!  This is all about actively trying to impose one person's moral standards on another person.  The more it's talked about, the more obvious that becomes.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Yeah, but your boss is pretty cool about most things, isn't he?

Mostly, he's a stingy bastard when it comes to raises though.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

A $40 charge every 4-6 months seems like a fair deal for free money...

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

I'm salaried and work well above 40 hours a week. If I spend a few minutes here or there playing it has no impact in my work product. All it impacts is how late i will have to work.

And would be an issue between me and my employer. No taxpayers money is being paid to me so you are comparing apples to oranges.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

I'm salaried and work well above 40 hours a week. If I spend a few minutes here or there playing it has no impact in my work product. All it impacts is how late i will have to work.

And would be an issue between me and my employer. No taxpayers money is being paid to me so you are comparing apples to oranges.

If employees are using a company issued computer, maybe employers should charge them, say $50 dollars a month for their personal use of their property.  Deduct it from their paycheck.  Call it a rental fee for part-time personal usage depreciation.  After say three years of monthly payments, the employee gets a new computer at work and they even get to take the old computer home, minus all the software programs installed on it.

Track their keyboard usage with tracking software.  Those that don't use it for part-time fun don't get charged.

Win-win for everyone.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 16:57:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm salaried and work well above 40 hours a week. If I spend a few minutes here or there playing it has no impact in my work product. All it impacts is how late i will have to work.

And would be an issue between me and my employer. No taxpayers money is being paid to me so you are comparing apples to oranges.

If employees are using a company issued computer, maybe employers should charge them, say $50 dollars a month for their personal use of their property.  Deduct it from their paycheck.  Call it a rental fee for part-time personal usage depreciation.  After say three years of monthly payments, the employee gets a new computer at work and they even get to take the old computer home, minus all the software programs installed on it.

Track their keyboard usage with tracking software.  Those that don't use it for part-time fun don't get charged.

Win-win for everyone.

What does an employee/employer relationship have to do with taxpayer funded benefits?

Oh...and I DID have to pee in a cup to get my job.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Pre-employment screening is almost pointless though. Saying you do it weeds out the candidates that know they won't pass, but everyone who shows up for the whiz quiz passes, so it's almost a worthless cost to the employer. Lots of casual users will refrain while looking for work then go back to casual use after they're hired. If you want to catch them you have to do random testing.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 17:21:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 16:57:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If employees are using a company issued computer, maybe employers should charge them, say $50 dollars a month for their personal use of their property.  Deduct it from their paycheck.  Call it a rental fee for part-time personal usage depreciation.  After say three years of monthly payments, the employee gets a new computer at work and they even get to take the old computer home, minus all the software programs installed on it.

Track their keyboard usage with tracking software.  Those that don't use it for part-time fun don't get charged.

Win-win for everyone.

What does an employee/employer relationship have to do with taxpayer funded benefits?

Oh...and I DID have to pee in a cup to get my job.

I thought this thread was all about taking away money from people when it really isn't necessary as the numbers have proven (Florida drug screening welfare recipients).  I was just adding another way employers can take money away.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 17:28:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Pre-employment screening is almost pointless though. Saying you do it weeds out the candidates that know they won't pass, but everyone who shows up for the whiz quiz passes, so it's almost a worthless cost to the employer. Lots of casual users will refrain while looking for work then go back to casual use after they're hired. If you want to catch them you have to do random testing.

Unless you are a covered employee (DOT/FHWA, DOT), most employers don't do random alcohol and drug testing. The only alcohol and drug testing they would do is for probable cause.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 17:29:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 17:21:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

What does an employee/employer relationship have to do with taxpayer funded benefits?

Oh...and I DID have to pee in a cup to get my job.

I thought this thread was all about taking away money from people when it really isn't necessary as the numbers have proven (Florida drug screening welfare recipients).  I was just adding another way employers can take money away.

Clearly my employer (since you used me as an example) is more than happy with what I contribute to my company. My employer could start making me pay for personal use of business items but then I would find a new job. I answer business emails, texts and calls at all hours without extra compensation. If my employer was pathetic enough to charge me for typing on their laptop I would go to a company not so pathetic. I actually AM contributing to the bottom line of my company....can welfare recipients claim to be contributing to anything?

Like I said, you are comparing apples to oranges...

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 17:34:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 17:28:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Pre-employment screening is almost pointless though. Saying you do it weeds out the candidates that know they won't pass, but everyone who shows up for the whiz quiz passes, so it's almost a worthless cost to the employer. Lots of casual users will refrain while looking for work then go back to casual use after they're hired. If you want to catch them you have to do random testing.

Unless you are a covered employee (DOT/FHWA, DOT), most employers don't do random alcohol and drug testing. The only alcohol and drug testing they would do is for probable cause.

Not true. Anytime we have a workplace injury, it is company policy that he employee get tested. That includes a clutz like me who might trip and fall. At any point, anyone in my company can be subject to a drug and alcohol test.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Welfare recipients contribute to the bottom line of tons of businesses. The entire ag and grocery industry loves food stamps for example. Every dollar in benefits goes into some bodies pocket. Section 8 landlords, grocery retailers, insurance providers, etc.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 1:50:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Cool!  Then we'll start that charge on folks who are on the internet while they're supposed to be working for the money they're being paid.  They're getting paid for playing on the internet!  That should go over well.

I'm salaried and work well above 40 hours a week. If I spend a few minutes here or there playing it has no impact in my work product. All it impacts is how late i will have to work.

And would be an issue between me and my employer. No taxpayers money is being paid to me so you are comparing apples to oranges.

Not really.  While you're not the type of person to take  advantage of your employer, there are plenty who do.  A company makes just so much money.  Part of that money is set aside as payroll, and some of that is for salary increases.  The guy who sits on his tush playing games on the computer all day is getting paid money for nothing, AND that money could be used to give a larger raise (or,  in some cases, any raise at all) to those who actually work for a living. In the case of government employees, or employees of companies with government contracts, it most certainly is taxpayer's money.  It definitely does affect other employees, and ... it's getting paid for doing nothing, just like the "welfare rats" some take such joy in complaining about.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 17:37:14 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 17:34:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Unless you are a covered employee (DOT/FHWA, DOT), most employers don't do random alcohol and drug testing. The only alcohol and drug testing they would do is for probable cause.

Not true. Anytime we have a workplace injury, it is company policy that he employee get tested. That includes a clutz like me who might trip and fall. At any point, anyone in my company can be subject to a drug and alcohol test.

Not sure what you don't understand about the word 'most'.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 17:44:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 5, 2014 17:37:14 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Not true. Anytime we have a workplace injury, it is company policy that he employee get tested. That includes a clutz like me who might trip and fall. At any point, anyone in my company can be subject to a drug and alcohol test.

Not sure what you don't understand about the word 'most'.

I can assure you that in "most" manufacturing xompanies, what I described is the norm. I know it was the policy in my manufacturing clients when I was an auditor.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 17:41:04 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm salaried and work well above 40 hours a week. If I spend a few minutes here or there playing it has no impact in my work product. All it impacts is how late i will have to work.

And would be an issue between me and my employer. No taxpayers money is being paid to me so you are comparing apples to oranges.

Not really.  While you're not the type of person to take  advantage of your employer, there are plenty who do.  A company makes just so much money.  Part of that money is set aside as payroll, and some of that is for salary increases.  The guy who sits on his tush playing games on the computer all day is getting paid money for nothing, AND that money could be used to give a larger raise (or,  in some cases, any raise at all) to those who actually work for a living. In the case of government employees, or employees of companies with government contracts, it most certainly is taxpayer's money.  It definitely does affect other employees, and ... it's getting paid for doing nothing, just like the "welfare rats" some take such joy in complaining about.

I still can't believe that you don't see a difference between employees and welfare recipients. In a private company, deadbeats can be fired for screwing around all day and not contributing enough to the company. It will be the same when we can "fire" welfare recipientS

ETA: yes, in the case of government employees it is the same as they are paid directly from the taxpayers