Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on February 07, 2012, 02:29:42 PM
-
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww62/wvbassmaster/drugtest.jpg)
-
if there was a drug test that was required to pass 1/2 the nation would be out of a job. I wont pass one and I dont do illegal drugs.
semp
-
You shouldn't have to pass one to get a job.
Urine tests are frequently used to terminate employees even though they don't determine whether or not someone is under the influence of drugs. They don't even test for drugs, they only test for drug metabolites so they only show if a person has used drugs recently (4 hours to 2 months). They're also incredibly easy to cheat.
The only method I've ever personally practiced to pass one is abstinence, yet I've still had 2 false positives and it's not much fun proving a false positive wrong. I'm still blacklisted for life from donating plasma in the U.S. probably due to something I ate that contained poppy seeds.
Ask yourself this question. Would you trust a breathalyzer to determine whether or not you are currently drunk if it were only capable of determining whether or not you've consumed alcohol during the last several weeks?
-
if there was a drug test that was required to pass 1/2 the nation would be out of a job. I wont pass one and I dont do illegal drugs.
semp
I disagree.
How much experience do you have with administration of drug screening? Eating Poppy Seed bagels won't do it, for instance.
-
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/baby.jpg)
-
I disagree.
How much experience do you have with administration of drug screening? Eating Poppy Seed bagels won't do it, for instance.
Yes it can, and it has for me. I've taken more than I can count and I have read extensively about the methods and mechanics of the common testing methods as well as discussed it at length with a close friend who manages a lab and gives me free pre-tests whenever I feel the need.
-
I disagree.
How much experience do you have with administration of drug screening? Eating Poppy Seed bagels won't do it, for instance.
That hasn't been an issue for years since most agencies have raised the cut-off level as the opiate tests were much too sensitive.
I think it is at about 2000 ng/ML, now. A lot of folks did get screwed in the beginning, although I didn't know that there was a national list for dope addicts that wanted to give plasma...
-
That hasn't been an issue for years since most agencies have raised the cut-off level as the opiate tests were much too sensitive.
I think it is at about 2000 ng/ML, now. A lot of folks did get screwed in the beginning.
I hope you're right, I'm not as familiar with opiates as I am other things and I failed that test back in 1999 when I was a starving college student. For THC it's still 50 ppm in the U.S. for those who go to concerts. The plasma place only tested for opiates and they said they were only concerned with needle drugs.
-
I hope you're right, I'm not as familiar with opiates as I am other things and I failed that test back in 1999 when I was a starving college student. For THC it's still 50 ppm in the U.S. for those who go to concerts. The plasma place only tested for opiates and they said they were only concerned with needle drugs.
DOT tests were relaxed some years back and you'd have to eat jars of poppy seeds to trigger a positive. Simply eating Poppy seeds as an ingredient won't trigger a positive on your 5 panel DOT drug screen.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple
-
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww62/wvbassmaster/drugtest.jpg)
I agree 100%
-
I hope you're right, I'm not as familiar with opiates as I am other things and I failed that test back in 1999 when I was a starving college student. For THC it's still 50 ppm in the U.S. for those who go to concerts. The plasma place only tested for opiates and they said they were only concerned with needle drugs.
Opiates are not the only drugs that are consumed, through a needle. In fact, Methamphetamine are by far, the most abused Schedule II drug in the US.
I would tend to believe Golfer. As a commercial pilot, he is probably very up to date on drug policies and the DOT regs.
-
I hope you're right, I'm not as familiar with opiates as I am other things and I failed that test back in 1999 when I was a starving college student. For THC it's still 50 ppm in the U.S. for those who go to concerts. The plasma place only tested for opiates and they said they were only concerned with needle drugs.
never donating plasma again after over hearing a couple employees discuss how they get people in and out faster (by increasing the pressure which they shoot blood back into you), occasionaly resulting in a bursted vein here an there. I only did it becuase they were offering $50 to sit in a chair! As for the UA if they give you any sort of a heads up, diluting helps. Drink plenty of gatorade (not water, it's more obvious you diluted) and urinate frequntly before. It werked fer me :aok
also if attending a house party it's a good idea to ask all ingredients in the cookies before omnoming on half the batch.
-
For THC it's still 50 ppm in the U.S. for those who go to concerts.
For those who go to concerts?? :O
What does that mean???
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple
Bunch of stupid posts below from fellow drug users on the public dole no doubt.
-
Drug testing is a racket. It can really only effectively catch pot users due to the short times in system for other drugs. Meaning unless you go to work high on cocaine or heroin or meth, it's the only way your getting caught and even then, you usually have some type of time to detox.
-
I agree. I'm not paying taxes so some crackhead can support his habits.
-
I think every government employee (including politicians and their staff) should have to take a pee test before they test anyone else.
Do as I say, not as I do?
The Daily Show has done the best journalism to date on the growing trend of opportunistic lawmakers introducing legislation to drug test people who receive unemployment benefits.
Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi did a powerful and humorous segment that features elected officials, including Florida Governor Rick Scott, hypocritically forcing poor people to piss in a cup for money to feed their children, but refusing to take the piss test themselves.
The segment successfully counters stereotypes and misinformation (by showing that people who receive benefits do not use drugs more than the general public) and the myth that these tests are about saving taxpayer money (these programs actually cost much more money than they save).
The segment also features Luis Lebron, a navy veteran who is being represented by the ACLU in a lawsuit against the Florida law. Lebron, a father of two, explains that he is unwilling to submit to a drug test because it is a violation of his constitutional right to privacy under the 4th amendment.
Opportunistic elected officials around the country are capitalizing on Americans' economic insecurity by bringing back the "welfare queen" stereotype that President Reagan used so successfully to stigmatize the poor -- instead of looking at the real fiscal waste, like keeping more than 500,000 people behind bars for nothing more than a nonviolent drug offense.
There are now dozens of states that have introduced legislation to drug test people who receive welfare or unemployment benefits -- and more states will surely follow. We need to combat these divisive laws that erode privacy, waste taxpayer money and demonize people who are struggling the most.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple
-
I think every government employee (including politicians and their staff) should have to take a pee test before they test anyone else.
sounds reasonable, since they are also living off the taxes from the productive economy :aok
-
I'm pretty sure that at least in the case of the president, a full physical (one that makes young men like me squirm) is in order annually or even semi-annually in order to keep the president in good working order.
-Penguin
-
For those who go to concerts?? :O
What does that mean???
It depends on the tests conducted and your exposure. Second hand marijuana smoke won't cause a positive on a routine screening but that isn't to say it cannot be detected.
THC, opiates, nicotine and any compound really can be detected. The type of screening and tests being conducted and the tolerances all vary depending on the situation.
I'm only referring to routine DOT screens and random drug tests. The tolerances are set to where you need to actually be using or sitting in a cloud of marijuana smoke for a positive to be triggered.
Pre employment, probationary and security screening requirements may vary, void where prohibited by law, only whole supplies last.
-
I'm pretty sure that at least in the case of the president, a full physical (one that makes young men like me squirm) is in order annually or even semi-annually in order to keep the president in good working order.
-Penguin
Executive physical. They're not just for presidents and they're very thorough.
-
I learn something new every day.
-Penguin
-
Insurance companies do the bulk of drug usage enforcement.
-
I think the point is if you're going to go on welfare, you should have to take a drug test.
I think it is a good idea. If you have enough disposable income to buy illegal drugs, you shouldn't be collecting public assistance. Or for that matter, using public assistance to fund a drug addiction or habit.
-
I think the point is if you're going to go on welfare, you should have to take a drug test.
I think it is a good idea. If you have enough disposable income to buy illegal drugs, you shouldn't be collecting public assistance. Or for that matter, using public assistance to fund a drug addiction or habit.
Some illegal drugs are cheap, and all get shared from time to time.
-
The answer, as Florida found out, is no. It costs far more money to pay for all of the drug tests than it saves by kicking users off of welfare.
Well, that and the fact that it is a politician steering .gov funds to companies that contributed to his/her campaign.
As a money saving plan, this one is sheer idiocy.
A better plan would be to legalize cannabis, regulate and tax it like tobacco. That saves us huge amounts of money from the criminal justice system, shuts down the black market and associated crime and even generates revenue through the tax on the cannabis as well as the taxes paid by workers who otherwise would have been in prison costing us $40,000/yr to support and all of this for a drug that isn't chemically addictive and is less debilitating than alcohol when intoxicated.
Personally, I still won't use it or other drugs. There are wonders enough in the universe without dulling one's senses.
-
If you are on welfare then you need to pass a drug test to get benefits - I'm sorry but I own rental property and this is just what I see every day.
People that are late 30s and mid 40s collecting social security that do drugs and drink all day - some work day labor to make a few bucks for a score.
Far as work goes - I agree with random testing - I worked for a metal fabrication shop long time ago and remembered they had absolutely no testing what so ever, far as I remember some people were getting drunk and high before work.
Worse case scenario: guy mow'd off 4 fingers to a sawzall because he had a few hits from a joint earlier. He sued the company and eventually won an out of court settlement, the company went bankrupt a few years back.
When I worked for Software spectrum (a third party tech support company) they tested once a month if not twice a month for drugs/alcohol. Problem was the job was extremely stressful and they wanted people to stay mentally fit to handle the stress. They offered a few plans to help cope with the stress, fact you worked 20 minutes each half hour with a 10 minute break, also had a full kitchen and Recreation room to relief stress.
My only problem with drugs is - if you are at home on your couch and decide to fire up a joint - you shouldn't be fired if you test positive 2 weeks later.
-
he cut fingers off because he smoked a joint... That doesn't make sense. Did he admit that. Why did he win if that was the case?
Oh, we're being dramatic.
There's probably about 50,000 other problems the state needs to fix first.
I think politicians should take lie detector tests and full complete background checks, drug tests and make public where their money comes from.
Lets get the state on the up and up before attacking more citizens.
-
There's probably about 50,000 other problems the state needs to fix first.
Naaa, this is a pretty good one to start with. The idea of welfare people sitting around doing illegal drugs while collecting payments from working people bothers me to no end. :bhead
Plus alot of jobs require a drug screening before taking the position. Someone doing illegal drugs while out of work shows me someone not serious about trying to find employment.
-
The idea of welfare people sitting around doing illegal drugs while collecting payments from working people bothers me to no end. :bhead
The idea of some government employee (read: politician) forcing people to take a drug test while refusing to take one themselves bothers me to no end.
-
he cut fingers off because he smoked a joint... That doesn't make sense. Did he admit that. Why did he win if that was the case?
What doesn't make sense? He smoked a joint then went to work and had a freak accident cutting off a few fingers.
Long story, to make it short - the company he worked for didn't drug test and had a very limited liability insurance, insurance company got the drug test back from the hospital and refused pay out, he sued the company for whatever bs and won an out of court settlement.
He didn't win millions, think it was more along the lines of the original hospital visit costs.
-
The idea of some government employee (read: politician) forcing people to take a drug test while refusing to take one themselves bothers me to no end.
No skin off my nose. A lot of public employees are required to undergo drug screening already. I could care less whether a politician takes a screening or not.
Welfare recipients are a different story though. If they can afford to buy and use drugs, they can afford not to be on welfare that I pay for.
-
I am subjected to drug testing where I work. I guess because I daily handle large amounts of cash. I don't like it, never have and never will, however I have never dropped a false positive so the technology seems to be adequate.
-
No skin off my nose. A lot of public employees are required to undergo drug screening already. I could care less whether a politician takes a screening or not.
Welfare recipients are a different story though. If they can afford to buy and use drugs, they can afford not to be on welfare that I pay for.
You are paying more for the politician than you are for a welfare recipient. It's all tax dollars. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
-
You have to start somewhere.... good a place as any.
-
You are paying more for the politician than you are for a welfare recipient. It's all tax dollars. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Apples and Oranges. We elect our representatives to government.
Able bodied people (or any people) on welfare who are using drugs is a different story.
-
Apples and Oranges. We elect our representatives to government.
Able bodied people (or any people) on welfare who are using drugs is a different story.
Is it more a matter of principle for you? If it's going to cost the state more money than they would save, I'd say it's not a big enough problem to worry about.
-
i thought I heard of a state I believe it was cali that did that and only 3% of the people on welfare were hot. my opinion, because i work on lowincome housing(all for free i mind you) is test for tobacco and beer. Smokes are expensive and so is beer, I have my own habits to support and I dont really like supporting their habits also. :mad: okay I am going to stop there before this turns into a rant. reddog2 out
-
If you are on welfare then you need to pass a drug test to get benefits - I'm sorry but I own rental property and this is just what I see every day.
People that are late 30s and mid 40s collecting social security that do drugs and drink all day - some work day labor to make a few bucks for a score.
Far as work goes - I agree with random testing - I worked for a metal fabrication shop long time ago and remembered they had absolutely no testing what so ever, far as I remember some people were getting drunk and high before work.
Worse case scenario: guy mow'd off 4 fingers to a sawzall because he had a few hits from a joint earlier. He sued the company and eventually won an out of court settlement, the company went bankrupt a few years back.
When I worked for Software spectrum (a third party tech support company) they tested once a month if not twice a month for drugs/alcohol. Problem was the job was extremely stressful and they wanted people to stay mentally fit to handle the stress. They offered a few plans to help cope with the stress, fact you worked 20 minutes each half hour with a 10 minute break, also had a full kitchen and Recreation room to relief stress.
My only problem with drugs is - if you are at home on your couch and decide to fire up a joint - you shouldn't be fired if you test positive 2 weeks later.
+1
I think everyone has a duty to their employer to be sober at work.
-
So do we have a right to have our politicians be sober at work?
-
So do we have a right to have our politicians be sober at work?
When our leaders are "leading" us, I would be inclined to say yes. I would like to believe that I should have the right a reasonable expectation of their sobriety and as such, should be in a sound mind when performing their duties.
When they are at home, I could give a rat's arse what they do, as long as it is not affecting their judgement on the job.
-
there should be no drug testing whatsoever, nor should there be goberment welfare. welfare should be up to the churchs and community's.
i'm pretty sure tom jefferson would feel the same way ;)
but on the other hand, if u get government help u should have to obey their rules if you asked for the help and it was not forced upon you.
My main point being, do away with welfare altogether and this wouldn't even be an issue. It's not the government's job to teach morality imo. that's the churchs job.
-
So do we have a right to have our politicians be sober at work?
did u vote for him? a few more potheads in office might do us some good.....just saying :cool:
-
in my experiences with welfare, its not so much drugs but people cheating the system. when we work on homes the occupants must meet certain income levels, I think its 200% poverty which for a house of 3 I think its like 33000. we have been to homes where people have a brand new chevy 3/4ton truck and 3 bandy new snowmobiles on top of a brand new trailer. I think thats where people take the system they lie to get it and nobody checks up on this sort of thing.
-
in my experiences with welfare, its not so much drugs but people cheating the system. when we work on homes the occupants must meet certain income levels, I think its 200% poverty which for a house of 3 I think its like 33000. we have been to homes where people have a brand new chevy 3/4ton truck and 3 bandy new snowmobiles on top of a brand new trailer. I think thats where people take the system they lie to get it and nobody checks up on this sort of thing.
^^^^^ This
Same goes for child support. I have seen grown men come into court and cry the blues about being broke and jobless. Then the prosecutor asks how they are paying the $500/ month car loan for their Mercedes. This is about 5 seconds before the judge sends them to county fr the weekend to have time to think about how they are going to sell that car...
I'm all for helping folks get a leg up, but I'm not into supporting their recreational habits or lavish lifestyle from the sweat of MY brow...
-
I hope you don't have to get tested to fly a cartoon corsair and talk a lot of noise.
-
I hope you don't have to get tested to fly a cartoon corsair and talk a lot of noise.
Bored?
Lack of imagination?
Prostate exam too rough?
-
Bored?
Lack of imagination?
Prostate exam too rough?
A little bored.
Probably can't imagine what is going on in that cell.
Maybe a rough prostrate exam.
-
A little bored.
Probably can't imagine what is going on in that cell.
Maybe a rough prostrate exam.
You can relieve some boredom by fixing your photobucket account...
-
^^^^^ This
Same goes for child support. I have seen grown men come into court and cry the blues about being broke and jobless. Then the prosecutor asks how they are paying the $500/ month car loan for their Mercedes. This is about 5 seconds before the judge sends them to county fr the weekend to have time to think about how they are going to sell that car...
I'm all for helping folks get a leg up, but I'm not into supporting their recreational habits or lavish lifestyle from the sweat of MY brow...
Are you kiddin? I have rental property with people making less then $15 an hour and afford bran new mercedes and audi's. I mean its awesome how well people can save and juggle money. I sure as hell can't afford $400 a month for 5-7 years, I've been wanting to trade in both my second hand vehicles and put a nice down downpayment on a second hand four door truck.
/None of my tenants deal drugs, grams just pass away and they blow money like hot cakes.
-
Are you kiddin? I have rental property with people making less then $15 an hour and afford bran new mercedes and audi's. I mean its awesome how well people can save and juggle money. I sure as hell can't afford $400 a month for 5-7 years, I've been wanting to trade in both my second hand vehicles and put a nice down downpayment on a second hand four door truck.
/None of my tenants deal drugs, grams just pass away and they blow money like hot cakes.
I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean.
-
a guy was hired at my company passed the drug screen and finished new hire training on friday. Come monday morning the computer spit out his name for a random drug test and was fired that afternoon. He partied all weekend because he got the job. Pee test are not the best indicator of drug use if they want to know for sure they take hair samples, it gives a complet history like rings in a tree.
-
A little bored.
Probably can't imagine what is going on in that cell.
Maybe a rough prostrate exam.
well why dont you do something worth while with your time and TAKE THE MUPPET logo of you avatar.....you are not now nor have you ever been a MUPPET, so stop pretending you are anything more than the dog poop SkyRock would scrape off his shoe with a stick!!!
why am i not amazed at just how pathetic a human being you are?????? is the world really gotten so lame that i am no longer amazed that people like you are suffered to survive birth in our society?
now onto the active conversation of this thread, i personally think that drug testing should be done on a regular basis after they legalize and tax weed. use the revenue from the taxed weed to pay for the drug tests to cover harder core drugs that actually cause problems (i.e. crack, heroine)
-
a guy was hired at my company passed the drug screen and finished new hire training on friday. Come monday morning the computer spit out his name for a random drug test and was fired that afternoon. He partied all weekend because he got the job. Pee test are not the best indicator of drug use if they want to know for sure they take hair samples, it gives a complet history like rings in a tree.
They are also not indicators of individuals with drug problems. If one is not under the influence of a mind-altering substance, at work while performing their function and their weekend recreation does not impact any facet of their daily duties as an employee to include, but not limited to attendance and safety it should not matter.
-
They are also not indicators of individuals with drug problems. If one is not under the influence of a mind-altering substance, at work while performing their function and their weekend recreation does not impact any facet of their daily duties as an employee to include, but not limited to attendance and safety it should not matter.
However there are those that have to feed their drug use..... many by stealing.
-
However there are those that have to feed their drug use..... many by stealing.
There are many that steal to obtain alcohol and tobacco, clothing all of which are legal substances and can be equally dangerous and associated with health problems. There have been incidences around here of folks getting shot for the shoes on their feet...
Keeping in line with the OP, welfare checks are not the only thing that recipients of welfare use to purchase drugs, tobacco and other "non-essential" items, such as sneakers that retail for $150 or more. These is also a brisk food stamp/WIC check trade for such items.
I do not think that it is too much to ask for the recipients of welfare to be held accountable for what their benefits are used to acquire.
-
Well the new bill where welfare folks can't use their money for strip clubs is making a lot of folks unhappy. lol
-
Well the new bill where welfare folks can't use their money for strip clubs is making a lot of folks unhappy. lol
It is very discomforting that something like this has to be enforced by writ of law...
-
Having been worked on by EMT's, and likewise being an EMT, I Can understand a urine test for any health care provider (irregardless of prestige or years of service in their field of practice). hell, just having a small issue nagging you can affect your performance in the field, I couldn't imagine performing while under the influence of another substance....
-
Having been worked on by EMT's, and likewise being an EMT, I Can understand a urine test for any health care provider (irregardless of prestige or years of service in their field of practice). hell, just having a small issue nagging you can affect your performance in the field, I couldn't imagine performing while under the influence of another substance....
Problem is that most of these tests denote if you have you used drugs, not if you are currently under the influence at the time of the test.
Do I want my EMT to be blitzed on the job? Of course not.
Is it my business if he ties one after his shift as long as he gets a good night's sleep and is fresh and alert while on duty the next day? Not at all.
-
so stop pretending you are anything more than the dog poop SkyRock would scrape off his shoe with a stick!!!
So where is SkyRock these days?
-
So where is SkyRock these days?
Coming soon to a theater near you :aok
-
So where is SkyRock these days?
Coming soon to a theater near you :aok
NO! NO! NO! Last time he was brought up into discucssion, there was a huge fight.
-
I am firmly in favor of drug testing for the workforce and those collecting public money, but I'd prefer if they use hair folicle drug testing instead.
Also, I'm not in favor of the current unemployment benefits. I feel strongly you should only be able to collect based on a ratio of the years worked (and this doesn't include those on disability). For example, for every 7-10 years (up for debate) worked, you accrue 1 year of unemployment.
So, if you're a 58 year old machine shop employee that worked every day of his life, you can collect between 5-7 years. This way, you can go back to school to retrain for a new job or retire early.
-
I am firmly in favor of drug testing for the workforce and those collecting public money, but I'd prefer if they use hair folicle drug testing instead.
Also, I'm not in favor of the current unemployment benefits. I feel strongly you should only be able to collect based on a ratio of the years worked (and this doesn't include those on disability). For example, for every 7-10 years (up for debate) worked, you accrue 1 year of unemployment.
So, if you're a 58 year old machine shop employee that worked every day of his life, you can collect between 5-7 years. This way, you can go back to school to retrain for a new job or retire early.
Not a bad idea.
There is talk here, in PA, about putting in place a clause that requires you to provide proof that you are seeking gainful employment while collecting U/C benefits. From what I recall, what they have on the table right now is that you must fill/send out 2-3 applications for employment/resumes per week to be eligible for continued benefits. There is quite the uproar about it. I see no problem with it, even if there are not jobs available in your field, you should keep looking as the chances of one falling onto the same profession, as a new hire, at your previous wages are very slim unless it is a planned career move. It would be just a measure to curtail abuse of the system as it is implemented right now. U/C benefits are a measure to give someone a leg up if the bottom drops out and has never been intended to be a sole source of income but rather a stepping-stone to one's next steady job.
-
Problem is that most of these tests denote if you have you used drugs, not if you are currently under the influence at the time of the test.
Do I want my EMT to be blitzed on the job? Of course not.
Is it my business if he ties one after his shift as long as he gets a good night's sleep and is fresh and alert while on duty the next day? Not at all.
this is true, and I agree about what he does in his free time. I have seen some people that get dumber by the day when they use marijuana or alcohol....
a good body spray and visene can cover up most of the signs of marijuana use in the here and the now. just my .02 though.
-
So what new agency will do this testing? How much will this new agency cost? Are you all willing to pay more taxes for an agency that will most likely cost more to run than catch perps?
-
this is true, and I agree about what he does in his free time. I have seen some people that get dumber by the day when they use marijuana or alcohol....
a good body spray and visene can cover up most of the signs of marijuana use in the here and the now. just my .02 though.
Agreed with the here and now but, at some point, this will bite them in the arse and usually in a dangerous fashion.
The truth is, some folks do not exercise good judgement and unfortunately, that is something that the government can't fix.
-
The national average drug use rate: 7-9% of the population
The poverty drug use rate: 3-4% of population
Fact of the matter, going by Florida law, requiring people on welfare to pay $30 for a drug screen is tough for families where $30 is a lot, even if it will be reimbursed later. Not to mention that the state of Florida is losing a lot of money on all of this.
If you are going to require those on welfare to submit to drug screenings because they receive public money, I think anyone that receives money from the public should submit for drug screening. Including those that pass the laws that force this kind of "Class Warfare" on others.
-
Just drink some bleach to pass..
-
Just drink some bleach to pass..
drink it, I heard you just poor it directly in ur pee hole
-
I am firmly in favor of drug testing for the workforce and those collecting public money, but I'd prefer if they use hair folicle drug testing instead.
Also, I'm not in favor of the current unemployment benefits. I feel strongly you should only be able to collect based on a ratio of the years worked (and this doesn't include those on disability). For example, for every 7-10 years (up for debate) worked, you accrue 1 year of unemployment.
So, if you're a 58 year old machine shop employee that worked every day of his life, you can collect between 5-7 years. This way, you can go back to school to retrain for a new job or retire early.
What if you're 28, 2 years out of grad school, and $xxxK in debt? Also I thought unemployment payments were already based on how long you worked in the past and how much you earned.
-
Also I thought unemployment payments were already based on how long you worked in the past and how much you earned.
That's the way it is in Texas. The amount you get is on a sliding scale commensurate with your wages and length of employment. If you don't collect unemployment the money is returned to the employer after a waiting period. 3 years I think...
-
drink it, I heard you just poor it directly in ur pee hole
Bunghole actually...
You must pour the bleach directly into your bunghole so that it cleanses your whole system before it evacuates your peehole.
And what's all this talk of unemployment?
Re-train, re-organize, re-apply.
We're on the upswing men.
-
I am firmly in favor of drug testing for the workforce and those collecting public money, but I'd prefer if they use hair folicle drug testing instead.
Also, I'm not in favor of the current unemployment benefits. I feel strongly you should only be able to collect based on a ratio of the years worked (and this doesn't include those on disability). For example, for every 7-10 years (up for debate) worked, you accrue 1 year of unemployment.
So, if you're a 58 year old machine shop employee that worked every day of his life, you can collect between 5-7 years. This way, you can go back to school to retrain for a new job or retire early.
You've never collected it have you? Idk what it pays out there but where I live the maximum would almost cover rent. I don't think it's possible to collect for more than 1 year the way things are now but I may be wrong.
So you'd prefer a test that still doesn't show whether or not a person is under the influence but goes back farther into the past?
Are there any other activities that people do on their own time that you think should disqualify them from earning a living?
-
You guys do know there is performance enhancing drugs. I want everyone involved in my safety using performance enhancing drugs for my safety and well being.
LOL
I do not want to collect the samples! Don't be simple minded.
-
What if you're 28, 2 years out of grad school, and $xxxK in debt? Also I thought unemployment payments were already based on how long you worked in the past and how much you earned.
Most states base your UC pay rate on your highest quarterly wage paid in the last 18 months (there's a minimum amount of wages required to qualify). Length of employment doesn't factor in, as the extensions are federally based. Also, 99 weeks is a bit misleading. The last two extensions are based upon your state's unemployment rate. If it's lower than 6%, you won't get extended.
-
The last two extensions are based upon your state's unemployment rate. If it's lower than 6%, you won't get extended.
now that is a very good idea, and something I'd like to see implemented here.
transitional support only for finding a new job in an area with loads of jobs. In my city unemployment is 3-4%, yet there are whole families who havent worked in generations. This in contrast to some cities where unemployment is very high indeed (usually due to a large scale industry shutting down like shipbuilding or coal mining.)
-
Wow this just keeps going on and on...
:devil
-
Wow this just keeps going on and on...
:devil
Yes but that is because it is a discussion and not a war zone.
-
What if you're 28, 2 years out of grad school, and $xxxK in debt?
If you're 28 years old, I guarantee you can find a job. It may not be the job you want, but employment is out there.
Also I thought unemployment payments were already based on how long you worked in the past and how much you earned.
Yes, but I'd like to see it completely re-vamped to better help those that have carried a job for many years without collecting. We need more incentives to work, rather than less.
-
You've never collected it have you?
No, I have never collected and I had a few opportunities to do so. Before and while I was going to school, I was laid off 5 times. After I got my degree I worked the most menial, degrading jobs until I could land the job I wanted.
So you'd prefer a test that still doesn't show whether or not a person is under the influence but goes back farther into the past?
If you're going to collect public money of any kind, including retiring early on uncollected unemployment benefits (as I suggested earlier), you should be tested, period. Personally, I'd rather have them not bother testing for marijuana, but rather for much more destructive drugs like opiates.
-
There is talk here, in PA, about putting in place a clause that requires you to provide proof that you are seeking gainful employment while collecting U/C benefits. From what I recall, what they have on the table right now is that you must fill/send out 2-3 applications for employment/resumes per week to be eligible for continued benefits.
They have that in Connecticut for some of the benefits right now and it is a complete joke. To get around it they look in the paper for jobs they have no hope of landing and bring a copy of the application to the State. I know one personally that used to apply to the American Lung Association and had the credientials of a 'self taught computer aided graphic design' and put on the application he is a 3+ pack a day smoker.
Yes, I am cynical, but I've seen it first hand.
-
They have that in Connecticut for some of the benefits right now and it is a complete joke. To get around it they look in the paper for jobs they have no hope of landing and bring a copy of the application to the State. I know one personally that used to apply to the American Lung Association and had the credientials of a 'self taught computer aided graphic design' and put on the application he is a 3+ pack a day smoker.
Yes, I am cynical, but I've seen it first hand.
you guys ever thought that even though you may deny to death that most of the country is on welfare one way or another. those who have a house and deduct their mortgage interest are being subsidized by other who rent. those that are so against people on welfare and yet are so quick to ask for a receipt for that "business" meal. there's lots of ways to lower your taxes legally and they are being subsidized by others. I call this welfare. and dont even get me started on corporations having all kinds of deductions and "incentives" to invest on something they have to do to stay in business anyway.
this we must test all on welfare is fine and dandy. but to be honest let's test everybody that takes a deduction on their taxes. after all, not everybody takes the same deduction and by default they are being subsidized by others so isnt getting "free" money welfare?
of course it's only welfare if it applies to somebody else, isnt it?
semp
-
you guys ever thought that even though you may deny to death that most of the country is on welfare one way or another. those who have a house and deduct their mortgage interest are being subsidized by other who rent. those that are so against people on welfare and yet are so quick to ask for a receipt for that "business" meal. there's lots of ways to lower your taxes legally and they are being subsidized by others. I call this welfare. and dont even get me started on corporations having all kinds of deductions and "incentives" to invest on something they have to do to stay in business anyway.
this we must test all on welfare is fine and dandy. but to be honest let's test everybody that takes a deduction on their taxes. after all, not everybody takes the same deduction and by default they are being subsidized by others so isnt getting "free" money welfare?
of course it's only welfare if it applies to somebody else, isnt it?
semp
+1
Every meal eaten in america consists of heavily subsidized food, and that's just the beginning.
Unemployment insurance is something we pay into while we work, it's not free money that we give people in exchange for not working. And the laws of reality inevitably cause it to benefit some people disproportionately more and less than others. So to make sure nobody takes advantage we should just be done with it. God forbid we allow anyone to collect unemployment insurance while some people are still taking advantage of the system either intentionally or unintentionally. We should also make sure that while they're collecting it that they aren't spending any of it on non essential items like drugs. Now we just need to open up a new government dept of bureaucrats that will police those collecting unemployment, disability and wellfare recipients and this will somehow be better than a few taking advantage of the rest of us taxpayers.
-
God forbid we try to tighten up any government programs.
If we can't afford it we can always print more money, right?
-
Since 25 years ago in Oklahoma, you had to document your job searches. You needed at least 3 per week. If you didn't find a job within 3 or 6 months, you had to go in for re-training, so you could get some work. Employees don't pay this tax, it's the employer. Right now for me, it's 7% of payroll. If I call them back to work, they can say yes or no. Some like sitting on their butts and collecting. I can't make them come back to work.
-
I dont know much about unemployment, never used it. Welfare on the other hand, I believe people should have to do some kind of community service for it. You know make it so people dont want to be on the system. We just had a meeting yesterday at work and because we are community action, we see ALOT, there was a 24 year old lady that wrote a letter back to the agency saying how she was so happy that sevca helped her pay her light bill and pay her car payment, not 1 time not 2 times but 3 TIMES!! I have a problem with that because I have my own car payment and light bill, car insurance, etc. just as well as all of you guys.
-
most of the country is on welfare one way or another
Get rid of most of it... there is a reason we are 16 trillion in debt.