BF2S Forums Would it be unreasonable to ask?

Wtf is the dwp?

Macbeth wrote:

Just a thought that went through my mind today, but would it be unreasonable to make people who collect unemployment and welfare to submit to random drug testings?

Yes, being recently unemployed myself (after working nonstop for the last 25 years)... the anger and anxiety is starting to get to me. In fact, if I decide to collect unemployment I wouldn't mind if they gave me some self-medication (drugs) while I pick up that puny check and cry, "WTF is this paltry amount, do you know how much money I've given the government!!!! I'm supposed to live on this while there's no work in true private sector? Can someone get me a beer, a joint, or meth. or something. I need to anesthetized myself."

Yeah right people NOT WORKING need to be drug tested. What a dopey fucking idea.

Oh, I just changed my mind:
I think they should subject them to religious testing as well. No welfare or unemployment for Atheists.
Or gays.

Also if we find a minimum wage job for a divorced mother she has to work, no matter what the costs to her: day-care, travel expenses, etc.

If the person wears a suit and looks presentable, seriously this guy/gal wants to work so it's obvious it's just tough out there, double the benefits.

Require GPS ankle bracelets (and a secret voice recorder) so we can keep tabs on their activities. Imagine them getting a welfare check or unemployment check and wasting it on: booze, hookers, a trip to Disneyland, a night out at the movies, or any other thing that's not an: electric bill, interest payment to a bank, an insurance payment to a health care co., a car payment, rent, food... it's beyond comprehension.

I hereby submit to your will, O' genius of the patriotic heart, your argument for big brother, is not populous BS, and has convinced me I was wrong in my initial reaction to your fucking dopey idea.

PS: Don't take this seriously. Tis just an Internet forum, having some fun, ranting, dribbling, driveling and blathering. "Teh Internets is not serious business."

Last edited by topal63 (2009-04-02 11:19:33)

LividBovine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

As a member of a company that enforces these policies, I feel inclined to comment.

The process goes as follows:

Person provides sample for testing.
Sample tests positive.
Lab tests sister sample.  (they split the initial sample for this reason)
Lab sends positive results to company.
Company informs employee of results and provides options. 
---Re-test (at the employees expense, company pays if it comes back negative).
---Attend rehab program while returning to work.
---Decline Re-test and Rehab=Good Bye

I know, we corporate war mongering big business folks are horrible people to treat our employees this way.

While multiple samplings decrease the chances of errors, they aren't foolproof.  Until you have a test with a negligible error rate, you still run the risk of penalizing someone for a false positive.

What error rate is exceptable then?  Is it 1/1000?

Well, if it was 1/1000, and your company has 100,000 employees, that means you might wrongfully layoff 100 people.

I would hope the error rate would be much lower than that.

LividBovine wrote:

Don't you think, given our sue happy culture, that we wouldn't be able to do all this drug testing if it wasn't pretty accurate?  I have let 2 people go due to drug testing in the last year alone.  I believe we are at about 10 in the last 5 years as a company.  If this was an innacurate or unfair practice I think we would have heard about it.

I would think that your industry is not unlike many other industries connected to insurance.  For example, my company only drug tests people when they get injured and have to go to the hospital.  Now, the stated reason for this policy is to make sure that intoxication wasn't part of why the injury occurred.  Of course, if you read between the lines, it's because insurance companies want to use whatever excuse they can to keep from covering you.

Drug tests aren't really about catching people doing the wrong thing, it's about giving the insurance companies one more way to fuck you over.  Besides, if it was really about drug use, then the tests would be more aimed at crack and heroin, but as it currently stands, THC is the easiest substance to detect, since it stays in your system for a while.

Most of the harder drugs leave your system after a few days.  So, in effect, they should really just call them pot tests.  That's about all they are really worth in practical terms.  So, basically, insurance companies can decline to cover you if you smoked pot sometime in the last month (well beyond the duration of effects).