“Democrats have blocked a separate measure that would have required drug testing for welfare recipients. “
Of course they have, haven’t they...
If you get government money, you are a defacto government employee, you should at least be held to somewhat of a standard in my opinion.
My ex wife is on disability precisely because of her drug & alcohol addiction.
Oh, yeah, the entire Congress must accept O'Bammmy care for their own coverage.
FMCDH(BITS)
Unemployment ‘benefits’ are insurance which is purchased to protect an employee in the case of job loss. If eligibility is contingent upon some condition, the test should come at application not redemption. Imagine paying for home owners insurance for decades only to learn that you are ineligible to collect after your house burns down — for a reason that was not disclosed until after your home burned.
Furthermore, ineligible employees should be paid/reimbursed the cost of insurance. I’m sure there are plenty of private insurers who will provide coverage.
I find it completely ironic that employees are penalized for recreational drug abuse while welfare beneficiaries are not tested for drug abuse. The former has at least contributed to our GDP.
In a society that decriminalizes, legalizes, and subsidizes drug abuse, it is immoral to deny someone unemployment benefits based on a test conducted at the time of benefit payment. No private firm could conduct a scam like this.
WHAT???
So, the people who have actually been working and who fail a drug test will not be able to receive unemployment insurance and the welfare recipients whose welfare these formerly employed people helped pay for will continue to receive welfare, drugs or not?
Well, the obvious solution is for these former workers to apply for welfare.
Drug testing not a bad idea....but the cost is just too much. A good accurate drug test runs at least $150. Any cheaper...and you spend more $$ challenging false tests in court.
This will be struck down by the courts. It is unconstitutional unless they can provide probable cause. Same with welfare. Private companies can do this. The government cannot.
They said she was a decent person; although she had struggled somewhat like we all do in life, when she was employed she worked hard and took care of her son (her marriage had previously broken up).
Once she started collecting unemployment, her life took a spiral descent into drug and alcohol addiction. Her parents said they would go over to her apartment early in the morning, and she would be drinking and using from the time she got up.
Her father laid part of the blame on the fact that she got a check, but didn't have to report for work or even look for a job. He said she knew the "checks would just keep on coming, and she had zero motivation to clean herself up and change."
I know this is an anecdotal story, but I cannot help but believe that this circumstance is repeated time and time again, in city after city, state after state.
We have spent almost a Trillion dollars on unemployment in just the past few years - in effect, paying people not to work.
I don't begrudge taking unemployment for a short time. Many, many people have lost their jobs, and an amount is deducted from paychecks to help offset this cost (although the Federal government pays a huge amount of this cost through deficit spending).
The old adage is that "idle hands are the devil's playground." I think there is some truth to that. Getting paid to lay on the couch can lead to addiction in many people - period.