Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[vandalshandle]

The last job I had before I retired was working for a hospital. If you were caught on the internet 3 times while using the company computer (other than job related research), even during your lunch hour, your being fired was mandatory, with no appeal.

[mmhmm]

Believe it, or not.  I do not see any difference between someone (especially, someone who really needs the help) taking welfare and some jerk playing when he ought to be working and accepting a paycheck for it.  It's the same mentality.

If a welfare recipient reaches a point where they're no longer entitled to benefits, or are found to be defrauding the system they, too, are "fired".  They no longer collect welfare.  Welfare recipients are "fired" all the time.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 18:01:33 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

The last job I had before I retired was working for a hospital. If you were caught on the internet 3 times while using the company computer (other than job related research), even during your lunch hour, your being fired was mandatory, with no appeal.

My hospital was the same, vandals.  They had strong, protective software on the system, which could not be used by the average employee to connect to the internet.  There were a few of us who had internet privileges, but I imagine we were closely monitored.  We weren't there to play.  We were there to work.  That's what we were being paid to do.

[vandalshandle]

I used to own a swimming pool maintenance company. My drivers were supposed to clean 10 to 12 pools per day. However, I soon learned that I had to spy on them....follow them around all day, because sometimes, they would just go to Arizona Charlie's casino (I lived in Vegas), and spend the day playing slots. None of these guys were on welfare. They were chiselers with jobs. They did much more damage to me than anyone on welfare. They endangered my entire livelyhood. I had four trucks, and I never bothered to take the ad out of the paper for help wanted, because I had to fire an average of one of them a week. After they were gone, I would discover that they had even stolen the spare tire and jack off of the truck.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 17:54:04 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

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

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.

I am glad you can assure me-I will sleep better tonight. 

The employer I worked for conducted pre-employment, random, post accident (vehicle or aircraft), reasonable suspicion/cause (odor, appearance, behavior,etc.), return -to-duty, and follow-up drug/alcohol screens. We did not drug test if someone dropped a heavy box on their foot and broke bones or fell out of a chair and fractured their arm.  We would test them though if they smelled of alcohol after they dropped a heavy box on their foot and broke bones or fell out of a chair and fractured their arm.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 18:02:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Believe it, or not.  I do not see any difference between someone (especially, someone who really needs the help) taking welfare and some jerk playing when he out to be working and accepting a paycheck for it.  It's the same mentality.

If a welfare recipient reaches a point where they're no longer entitled to benefits, or are found to be defrauding the system they, too, are "fired".  They no longer collect welfare.  Welfare recipients are "fired" all the time.

Because Kia up to the employer to decide if the employee is doing their job or not. If an employee is literally spending the day in the Internet then their supervisor sucks and bears responsibility. At all levers of a company there should be accountability. If someone has the time to spend all day in the Internet, not only should they be fired but their immediate supervisor should be as well for not realizing that the employee isn't doing anything

I am not a clock watcher. I don't care if my staff comes in at 8 or 8:30. I don't care if they take a 30 minute lunch, no lunch or a 90 minute lunch. We are all professionals and know what our deadlines are. We are all salaried and put in way more than enough hours over the course of the year. The only thing I care a out is that my staff does what needs to be done, does it well and meets out deadlines. I don't treat them like they are the burger flipper at McD's. they are professionals and I treat them as such. The minute they let me down (haven't yet) is he minute I crack down.

Flip side, I work hard and long hours. If there is a break my boss is the first one to tell me to take some time to myself . Right before year end he told me to leave at 2 because he knew the next few weeks are going to be hell.

So no, I truly don't understand how any of you can compare a bunch of highly paid professionals that work long and hard hours, to people who let the government support them. Luckily every person I ever worked for treated professionals like professionals and didn't watch to make sure I didn't spend an extra 5 minutes in the bathroom!

[mmhmm]

It's up to the agency of the government providing the specific type of support (welfare) to decide if the applicant qualifies for welfare.  If they don't qualify, they shouldn't receive welfare. There should be accountability.  If someone is on welfare who shouldn't be, they should be "fired", as should the person who didn't do their job when qualifying them.  Nobody here has argued anything other than that.

While your staff are professionals, not all employees are professionals; nor, are all welfare recipients actually qualified and able to work.  However, each of those welfare recipients is every bit as human as any of your employees.  They're just as important.  A burger-flipper is just as important, and should be treated with just as much respect as any of your staff.  They're actually people, too.  They matter.  They breathe.  They eat.  They bleed.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 18:43:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It's up to the agency of the government providing the specific type of support (welfare) to decide if the applicant qualifies for welfare.  If they don't qualify, they shouldn't receive welfare. There should be accountability.  If someone is on welfare who shouldn't be, they should be "fired", as should the person who didn't do their job when qualifying them.  Nobody here has argued anything other than that.

While your staff are professionals, not all employees are professionals; nor, are all welfare recipients actually qualified and able to work.  However, each of those welfare recipients is every bit as human as any of your employees.  They're just as important.  A burger-flipper is just as important, and should be treated with just as much respect as any of your staff.  They're actually people, too.  They matter.  They breathe.  They eat.  They bleed.

My point was that a burger flipper has set hours and is paid for each hour the he/she works. I do not have set hours and am paid the same whether i work 30 or 80 hours. I am paid for what I accomplish not for physically being in the office from 8-5.

You keep saying welfare people are fired. What about the genesrtional welfare recipient (like that article someone posted here a few weeks ago-41 year old mom and able bodies adult children all getting be edits). She is qualified by the mere fact that she doesn't work! She is the one I would like to fire but I can't. You compare employees to welfare recipients but they aren't the same. I can't dire a welfare recipient for being lazy. I can and have fired employees for being lazy (or just not willing to work the long hours requires-not everyone would call that lazy).

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 18:57:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 18:43:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It's up to the agency of the government providing the specific type of support (welfare) to decide if the applicant qualifies for welfare.  If they don't qualify, they shouldn't receive welfare. There should be accountability.  If someone is on welfare who shouldn't be, they should be "fired", as should the person who didn't do their job when qualifying them.  Nobody here has argued anything other than that.

While your staff are professionals, not all employees are professionals; nor, are all welfare recipients actually qualified and able to work.  However, each of those welfare recipients is every bit as human as any of your employees.  They're just as important.  A burger-flipper is just as important, and should be treated with just as much respect as any of your staff.  They're actually people, too.  They matter.  They breathe.  They eat.  They bleed.

My point was that a burger flipper has set hours and is paid for each hour the he/she works. I do not have set hours and am paid the same whether i work 30 or 80 hours. I am paid for what I accomplish not for physically being in the office from 8-5.

You keep saying welfare people are fired. What about the genesrtional welfare recipient (like that article someone posted here a few weeks ago-41 year old mom and able bodies adult children all getting be edits). She is qualified by the mere fact that she doesn't work! She is the one I would like to fire but I can't. You compare employees to welfare recipients but they aren't the same. I can't dire a welfare recipient for being lazy. I can and have fired employees for being lazy (or just not willing to work the long hours requires-not everyone would call that lazy).

As I made quite clear, the "generational welfare recipient" is something that really needs to be addressed.  In order to address it, we're going to have to spend some coin.  These people do need to be weeded out.  As I also pointed out, when a recipient is found to be defrauding the system, they ARE "fired".  It's just that we don't have enough man-power to find them all and ensure they're actually unable to work.  Nobody's arguing that shouldn't be done.  It certainly should.

Lazy is lazy.  I don't care if it's a lazy employee or a lazy welfare recipient.  If either is capable of doing the work and doesn't do the work, both are robbing the system.  They're just using different avenues to do so.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 19:04:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 18:57:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

My point was that a burger flipper has set hours and is paid for each hour the he/she works. I do not have set hours and am paid the same whether i work 30 or 80 hours. I am paid for what I accomplish not for physically being in the office from 8-5.

You keep saying welfare people are fired. What about the genesrtional welfare recipient (like that article someone posted here a few weeks ago-41 year old mom and able bodies adult children all getting be edits). She is qualified by the mere fact that she doesn't work! She is the one I would like to fire but I can't. You compare employees to welfare recipients but they aren't the same. I can't dire a welfare recipient for being lazy. I can and have fired employees for being lazy (or just not willing to work the long hours requires-not everyone would call that lazy).

As I made quite clear, the "generational welfare recipient" is something that really needs to be addressed.  In order to address it, we're going to have to spend some coin.  These people do need to be weeded out.  As I also pointed out, when a recipient is found to be defrauding the system, they ARE "fired".  It's just that we don't have enough man-power to find them all and ensure they're actually unable to work.  Nobody's arguing that shouldn't be done.  It certainly should.

Lazy is lazy.  I don't care if it's a lazy employee or a lazy welfare recipient.  If either is capable of doing the work and doesn't do the work, both are robbing the system.  They're just using different avenues to do so.

Then we disagree on what lazy means. Lazy is not someone who posts now and then throughout he day while working 50-60 hours a week. I doubt that the majority of posters on here are lazy, given that "most" of us make significantly higher than average salaries.

[vandalshandle]

There seems to be some sort of disconnect from the Right on this issue. There are plenty of drug addicts where I used to live in New Orleans. Many were married and had kids, who were not drug addicts. So, the breadwinner uses drugs, and is collecting unemployment. He should be thrown off unemployment, which means that the wife and kids no longer have access to food...except, of course, if the breadwinner decides to give up crack, or steal. If he is not caught, then an honest citizen is robbed. If he is caught, then we will thrown into the slammer at a cost of about $4,000 per month (not to mention giving him a lawyer, etc), and give him free shelter, food, and medical care.

Guess which choice he will make.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 19:08:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 19:04:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

As I made quite clear, the "generational welfare recipient" is something that really needs to be addressed.  In order to address it, we're going to have to spend some coin.  These people do need to be weeded out.  As I also pointed out, when a recipient is found to be defrauding the system, they ARE "fired".  It's just that we don't have enough man-power to find them all and ensure they're actually unable to work.  Nobody's arguing that shouldn't be done.  It certainly should.

Lazy is lazy.  I don't care if it's a lazy employee or a lazy welfare recipient.  If either is capable of doing the work and doesn't do the work, both are robbing the system.  They're just using different avenues to do so.

Then we disagree on what lazy means. Lazy is not someone who posts now and then throughout he day while working 50-60 hours a week. I doubt that the majority of posters on here are lazy, given that "most" of us make significantly higher than average salaries.

Ahh, but I didn't say anything about someone who posted now and then, did I?  No.  I didn't.   I said there are those who post quite frequently when they should be working.  Some might be able to justify posting "now and then".  It's a little more difficult to justify posting more than one actually works.  That said, if you're being paid to do a job and you're not doing that job and playing instead, I'd define that as an entitlement issue.  Under no circumstances would I ever say someone isn't lazy because they make a high salary.  The thought is ludicrous. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 19:52:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 19:08:30 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then we disagree on what lazy means. Lazy is not someone who posts now and then throughout he day while working 50-60 hours a week. I doubt that the majority of posters on here are lazy, given that "most" of us make significantly higher than average salaries.

Ahh, but I didn't say anything about someone who posted now and then, did I?  No.  I didn't.   I said there are those who post quite frequently when they should be working.  Some might be able to justify posting "now and then".  It's a little more difficult to justify posting more than one actually works.  That said, if you're being paid to do a job and you're not doing that job and playing instead, I'd define that as an entitlement issue.  Under no circumstances would I ever say someone isn't lazy because they make a high salary.  The thought is ludicrous. 

Who is to say who on here is doing their job and who isn't? The fact that they haven't been fired (including me) tells me that the posters are meeting the requirements of their jobs.

[mmhmm]

Where in the hell did you see me say anything about anybody "on here", MT?  The only one who's brought that angle into the discussion is you. We've already said there are bad supervisors and there is bad management.  There are those who just turn their heads because they don't want to deal with it.  Just as is true with those who are responsible for clearing a given individual to receive welfare.  Some do their jobs.  Some don't.  Because someone isn't fired only means that person is meeting minimum requirements and nobody is motivated to find the person who'll go above and beyond.  It doesn't mean the person doing the bare minimum isn't lazy.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 20:04:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Where in the hell did you see me say anything about anybody "on here", MT?  The only one who's brought that angle into the discussion is you. We've already said there are bad supervisors and there is bad management.  There are those who just turn their heads because they don't want to deal with it.  Just as is true with those who are responsible for clearing a given individual to receive welfare.  Some do their jobs.  Some don't.  Because someone isn't fired only means that person is meeting minimum requirements and nobody is motivated to find the person who'll go above and beyond.  It doesn't mean the person doing the bare minimum isn't lazy.

You started a few pages back about the posters posting in work time.

[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.

This is what I was replying to with my comments. It is obvious that the majority of posters post from work at least occasionally

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 20:04:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Where in the hell did you see me say anything about anybody "on here", MT?  The only one who's brought that angle into the discussion is you. We've already said there are bad supervisors and there is bad management.  There are those who just turn their heads because they don't want to deal with it.  Just as is true with those who are responsible for clearing a given individual to receive welfare.  Some do their jobs.  Some don't.  Because someone isn't fired only means that person is meeting minimum requirements and nobody is motivated to find the person who'll go above and beyond.  It doesn't mean the person doing the bare minimum isn't lazy.

So...doing the bare minimum but still meeting the requirements of your job means you are lazy but sitting your ass home a d collecting welfare isn't lazy? Got it

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 20:18:52 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:04:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Where in the hell did you see me say anything about anybody "on here", MT?  The only one who's brought that angle into the discussion is you. We've already said there are bad supervisors and there is bad management.  There are those who just turn their heads because they don't want to deal with it.  Just as is true with those who are responsible for clearing a given individual to receive welfare.  Some do their jobs.  Some don't.  Because someone isn't fired only means that person is meeting minimum requirements and nobody is motivated to find the person who'll go above and beyond.  It doesn't mean the person doing the bare minimum isn't lazy.

You started a few pages back about the posters posting in work time.

What I've talked about is people playing on the computer when they're supposed to be working.  I don't care if they're posting, playing games, chatting on FaceBook, or what.  Never did I single out posters here on this board.  You did that, MT.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 20:23:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:04:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Where in the hell did you see me say anything about anybody "on here", MT?  The only one who's brought that angle into the discussion is you. We've already said there are bad supervisors and there is bad management.  There are those who just turn their heads because they don't want to deal with it.  Just as is true with those who are responsible for clearing a given individual to receive welfare.  Some do their jobs.  Some don't.  Because someone isn't fired only means that person is meeting minimum requirements and nobody is motivated to find the person who'll go above and beyond.  It doesn't mean the person doing the bare minimum isn't lazy.

So...doing the bare minimum but still meeting the requirements of your job means you are lazy but sitting your ass home a d collecting welfare isn't lazy? Got it

Where did I say sitting at home on your arse if you're able to work wasn't lazy, MT.  You're putting words into my posts I haven't put there.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 20:20:23 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.

This is what I was replying to with my comments. It is obvious that the majority of posters post from work at least occasionally

MT, I know you understand this message board isn't the whole internet, and the posters here aren't the entire working community.  Where in that post do I refer to posters here, in particular.  My post is talking about folks in general.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2014 19:58:42 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 19:52:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Ahh, but I didn't say anything about someone who posted now and then, did I?  No.  I didn't.   I said there are those who post quite frequently when they should be working.  Some might be able to justify posting "now and then".  It's a little more difficult to justify posting more than one actually works.  That said, if you're being paid to do a job and you're not doing that job and playing instead, I'd define that as an entitlement issue.  Under no circumstances would I ever say someone isn't lazy because they make a high salary.  The thought is ludicrous. 

Who is to say who on here is doing their job and who isn't?  The fact that they haven't been fired (including me) tells me that the posters are meeting the requirements of their jobs.

Page 45, reply #1334, on the P&M 'ObamaCare Deathwatch' thread.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 13:40:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

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

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.

you know what i find strange about it?  conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives.  but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 20:49:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 13:40:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

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.

you know what i find strange about it?  conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives.  but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

Yup.  That's exactly what I see, dj.  It's kinda like:  "Keep the gubmint out m'life, but be sure they're right on up in that other guy's life because he ain't livin' it right!"  Beyond bizarre!

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 20:49:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 5, 2014 13:40:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

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.

you know what i find strange about it?  conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives.  but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

If I ever accept government benefits I will gladly pee in a cup...I had to pee in a cup to get my job. If I didn't want to pee in a cup I could have declined this job. If a welfare recipient doesn't want to pee in a cup they get the hell off welfare

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 5, 2014 20:30:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:20:23 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

This is what I was replying to with my comments. It is obvious that the majority of posters post from work at least occasionally

MT, I know you understand this message board isn't the whole internet, and the posters here aren't the entire working community.  Where in that post do I refer to posters here, in particular.  My post is talking about folks in general.

You specifically said "we will start to charge people who are on the Internet when they are supposed to be working". I'm not putting words in your mouth. You know as well as I do he majority of the posters on here post from work, even if it is just every now and then. Is that not true?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 17:54:04 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

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

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.

84% of employers use drug screening and 39% use random testing.

[mmhmm]

Jan 5, 2014 21:00:37 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 5, 2014 20:30:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

MT, I know you understand this message board isn't the whole internet, and the posters here aren't the entire working community.  Where in that post do I refer to posters here, in particular.  My post is talking about folks in general.

You specifically said "we will start to charge people who are on the Internet when they are supposed to be working". I'm not putting words in your mouth. You know as well as I do he majority of the posters on here post from work, even if it is just every now and then. Is that not true?

Oh, for goodness sakes!  There are millions of people on the internet, MT.  The people who post here aren't even a drop in the bucket!  I don't know where posters here post from.  I don't know who works nights, who works days, who owns their own business, who doesn't.  I would imagine there are a lot of people here who post from work since there are a lot of people all over the internet who post from work.  Please try not to personalize everything.  Everything isn't about you, or this message board, or the posters here.  Some things are about people in general.  This is one of them.  I wasn't targeting anyone in particular.

[Miss Tequila]

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.

Ok, mmhmm. Maybe you weren't targeting the posters here but his post clearly was. So no, I'm not the one making it about me or this board.

[Deleted]

you know what i find strange about it? conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives. but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of.

utterly bizarre.

No. What the conservatives want is for the "guvmint" to simply stop taking their tax money and handing it to drug addicts and alcoholics.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2014 18:02:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Believe it, or not.  I do not see any difference between someone (especially, someone who really needs the help) taking welfare and some jerk playing when he ought to be working and accepting a paycheck for it.  It's the same mentality.

If a welfare recipient reaches a point where they're no longer entitled to benefits, or are found to be defrauding the system they, too, are "fired".  They no longer collect welfare.  Welfare recipients are "fired" all the time.

i was wondering who would bring that up.  well done.

i also find it odd that someone thinks that defrauding their employer is any different than defrauding their government.