Pee in a cup to get unimployment?

Mottleydude said:
Yea I know, imagine that, congress having to live with the same laws we do. Quite a concept, huh?
Click to expand...
They've been exempting themselves from laws for decades, if not centuries. That kind of change isn't even on Obama's agenda. If fact he's all for that shit.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is incorrect. They are not required to pay UI unless the employees dismissal is for reasons not directly attributed to his/her job performance.
Click to expand...

He's not saying you have to be paid UI for any reason. This is another reason we shouldn't be introducing new, ridiculous standards that are not going to be fairly enforced. The requirement of unemployment is that you are available to work and looking for work. That's all that should matter. Whether a person is able to survive until they find a job (and hopefully sooner than later) should be the goal of Unemployment Insurance. Anything that claims to help us find criminals during this kind of process is really only going to help make government more intrusive and expensive.

USFREEDOM911 said:
Unemployment Insurance is not "...(your money being returned upon need)...".
The EMPLOYEE pays nothing into it. It is entirely paid for, by the EMPLOYER.
Click to expand...


Firstly, some states do have a UI tax because this is a state administered program that is often bailed out by the Federal government as it is being now. And also, If you are a conservative or libertarian, it should be common sense to you that employers consider these taxes a cost of hiring the employee that they factor into their value as a new hire.

Sure, you can make the argument from the left that they wouldn't necessarily offer them the same amount of money in a totally free market, but the good chance is there since they are willing to spend it when they have to.

And as an aside, when I was an employee of the State of North Carolina (working in a somewhat political capacity) I was never once approached by any person or document about drug testing, random or otherwise.
 
In a sense, as much as I think this bill could have some real traction in numerous state legislatures, I actually think from a purely practical perspective (because obviously I think it should be defeated) that this is one of the worst times to introduce a bill like this.

It's easy to approve of something like this if you view it from the old fed up taxpayer perspective of someone who pays and pays and pays but gets no benefits. Of course you'd resent someone using "your money" on drugs.

But more and more people who used to be in that class have gaps in employment and sustainable income after this year, and a lot of them have had to turn to these programs. Do they want to be asked to pee in the cup for Uncle Sam when all they're trying to do is get through the worst economic climate in a long time, with something that they believe they paid their fair share to receive?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is incorrect. They are not required to pay UI unless the employees dismissal is for reasons not directly attributed to his/her job performance.

for example, I'm released from my job as sysadmin because the company hired another company to perform my job at a lower price. Because of this, the company will have to pay my UI for whatever is required by state law.

other side, i'm fired because I called my boss a fanatical moron because she thinks the cowboys are still the greatest football team on the planet and she wouldn't know what a football really was even if someone pushed it up her ass sideways, that employer wouldn't have to pay my UI because I was fired for insubordination related directly to my position.
Click to expand...

SMY, I know that. UI is only for people who've been fired through no fault of their own.

What I'm saying is that if you make the employer pay something, they'll usually just have less money to pay you, and you'll just get a lower salary. If we required every employer to pay health insurance, for instance, it would have the same real effect as requiring every employee to pay health insurance. It would basically mean every employee is getting paid part of their pay in benefits instead of cash. Unemployment insurance is simply a mandatory benefit. It shouldn't be taken as a public matter, and we shouldn't allow invasions into privacy over it like pissing in a cup.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
In a sense, as much as I think this bill could have some real traction in numerous state legislatures, I actually think from a purely practical perspective (because obviously I think it should be defeated) that this is one of the worst times to introduce a bill like this.

It's easy to approve of something like this if you view it from the old fed up taxpayer perspective of someone who pays and pays and pays but gets no benefits. Of course you'd resent someone using "your money" on drugs.

But more and more people who used to be in that class have gaps in employment and sustainable income after this year, and a lot of them have had to turn to these programs. Do they want to be asked to pee in the cup for Uncle Sam when all they're trying to do is get through the worst economic climate in a long time, with something that they believe they paid their fair share to receive?
Click to expand...

What are we going to do with the people who failed the piss test?

Let them starve? Because they snorted some coke? Christ, what the hell is wrong with people who don't see what's wrong with that?

This is inhumane, and an invasion of privacy. In my view, UI is just a mandatory benefit, and shouldn't be considered a public matter.
 
Watermark said:
What are we going to do with the people who failed the piss test?

Let them starve?
Click to expand...

Right. I agree with you. And I also think that the people who get called on will not be as random as promised. The benefits are questionable. If you take someone off food stamps who needs food stamps to supplement their unemployment or underemployment situation, what costs are you creating for the taxpayer in the long term?

If someone was gainfully employed, what costs are we bearing when we create disincentives for them to take part in the genuine purpose of the program, which is to once again make them gainfully employed?
 
The problem is they're thinking of UI as a standard welfare program.

The main reason UI exists is that most people generally need a little support in between work. The reason it's mandatory is that most members of our society (not you Grind) would be disturbed by allowing people to starve to death in between work, and if it weren't mandatory we'd have to feed those who refused while they were working anyway (which would undermine the entire system). IMHO, that doesn't make it a standard welfare program. It's a private matter, that's mandatory for practical reasons.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
They are.
Click to expand...

Congressmen? Presidents? judges and justices?

Or just the lower workiing classes of public employees?

My stance is that those who leglistlate and support drug testing be tested as well.

I would rather it go away as a standard requirement and only be used when evidence of drug abuse exists.
 
tinfoil said:
uhhh, it common sense. UI comes right out of what your employer WOULD be paying you if the governemnt didn't step in to take their cut.
Click to expand...

Prove that the employer would pay you the extra amount, that they are paying for the unemployment insurance.
 
tinfoil said:
uhhh, it common sense. UI comes right out of what your employer WOULD be paying you if the governemnt didn't step in to take their cut.
Click to expand...

Yeah like any tax cuts my employer got he passed on into my check :rolleyes:

Man that was weak.
Or delusional.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
He's not saying you have to be paid UI for any reason. This is another reason we shouldn't be introducing new, ridiculous standards that are not going to be fairly enforced. The requirement of unemployment is that you are available to work and looking for work. That's all that should matter. Whether a person is able to survive until they find a job (and hopefully sooner than later) should be the goal of Unemployment Insurance. Anything that claims to help us find criminals during this kind of process is really only going to help make government more intrusive and expensive.




Firstly, some states do have a UI tax because this is a state administered program that is often bailed out by the Federal government as it is being now. And also, If you are a conservative or libertarian, it should be common sense to you that employers consider these taxes a cost of hiring the employee that they factor into their value as a new hire.

Sure, you can make the argument from the left that they wouldn't necessarily offer them the same amount of money in a totally free market, but the good chance is there since they are willing to spend it when they have to.

And as an aside, when I was an employee of the State of North Carolina (working in a somewhat political capacity) I was never once approached by any person or document about drug testing, random or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The Unemployment Insurance money only becomes someones money, after they receive it and YES it is then taxed like all income.
This has nothing to do with it being "...the employees money...", prior to them qualifying for unemployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top