Drug tests for welfare recipients

mattjack

JustAThought wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

Em. My last three jobs I had to agree to a full medical for desk based manager roles. I had to agree in advance for the HR department to have full access or I would not progress in the job interview to get the contract . I didn't want to & I argued the point but it was no medical; no job-simple as that . Did the medical got the contract. And no amount of arguing over dr patient confidentiality or otherwise was relevant.

That was just a medical: not drugs screening for illegal drugs.

ok.

Chuck Stone

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

It should be done by medics only, drug screen cards are not the best, we use them, but if we are discussing the person's drug status for court we only use lab results. We would never use a test screen card for legal reasons.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

So you have no problem with the woman who minds your kid in the creche getting stoned before work? What about the fella fixing your gas fire? No. How about your pilot? Or is it that you think cops should be checking on these people in their jobs?

Feathers

Channel Zero wrote:

MagicSean wrote:

It would be pretty simple. Don't give payments in cash but via an account assigned to your pps number that can only be accessed via laser and cannot be used for certain items. All the welfare officer would have to do is check your statements for anything else.

You need to re-think your position and stop being naive.

I'd agree with this for the most part — wouldn't bother with a Welfare officer checking what you spent your money on, but would give people credit rather than cash. Mostly to stop people going up to Newry or Derry at the weekend to spend it. Don't think there's anything naïve about it; I'm sure if you were running a shop or a restaurant in Letterkenny or Dundalk you'd be singing a different tune.

I don't see what so immoral about asking someone to contribute back to the economy with money they're receiving from it & avoiding spending that money abroad or on the black market.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

So you have no problem with the woman who minds your kid in the creche getting stoned before work? What about the fella fixing your gas fire? No. How about your pilot? Or is it that you think cops should be checking on these people in their jobs?

People shouldn't take chemicals that impair them when they are going to work (unless they are musicians or painters or politicians etc).

What I meant is that there should be credible suspicion* that a person drinking/using drugs is placing others in harms way and only an officer of the law should be imbued with the power to initiate the process.

*Presumption of innocence.

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only person allowed to carry out a drug test should be a cop who's suspicious that the person taking drug is putting the lives of others at risk.

Any other ****ing retarded notion of drug testing people going about their business is the first step in handing your own life over to a pack of ***** who think controlling the private behaviour of people minding their own business is their duty.

The slaves are asking for stronger chains.

Yes its totally retarded to be checking:
Bus drivers
Train drivers
Airline Pilots
Emergency Services
Soldiers
Armed Gardai

Or maybe the the retards are those who oppose such testing, after all defending the right of bus drivers to have a few spliffs before getting behind the wheel is a key human right.:mad:

Chuck Stone

SocSocPol wrote: »

Yes its totally retarded to be checking:
Bus drivers
Train drivers
Airline Pilots
Emergency Services
Soldiers
Armed Gardai

Or maybe the the retards are those who oppose such testing, after all defending the right of bus drivers to have a few spliffs before getting behind the wheel is a key human right.:mad:

Transparent strawman bullshit is transparent.

It's totally retarded to be checking everyone as a matter of policy - if there is a suspicion of impairment on the part of a person who should be concerned with the well-being of others - by all means investigate.

Otherwise it's little more than authoritarian fascism dressed up as concern for the public.

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Transparent strawman bullshit is transparent.

It's totally retarded to be checking everyone as a matter of policy - if there is a suspicion of impairment on the part of a person who should be concerned with the well-being of others - by all means investigate.

Otherwise it's little more than authoritarian fascism dressed up as concern for the public.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that.

My dad was a union rep for twenty years, and even they agreed to drug testing for people whose jobs potentially put other people at risk (crane operators, being a key example). Now the union also made sure that they got a chance to go to rehab and be reinstated (once) if they failed a drug test, but it is not unreasonable to expect people to be clean in certain jobs.

Chuck Stone

southsiderosie wrote: »

My dad was a union rep for twenty years, and even they agreed to drug testing for people whose jobs potentially put other people at risk (crane operators, being a key example). Now the union also made sure that they got a chance to go to rehab and be reinstated (once) if they failed a drug test, but it is not unreasonable to expect people to be clean in certain jobs.

I'd be interested to know if they were being tested for illegal drug use or were they being tested for being impaired on the job? Also, I can't help but think that without the union defending workers rights any worker failing a test (impaired?) would have been fired summarily.

It's none of an employers damn business what a person does in their own time as long as it isn't having a detrimental effect on their performance.

As regards our civil liberties we cede any ground to corporations and governments at our peril.

Syllabus

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Would the same apply with alcohol?
I don't really think its anyone's business what someone spends their money on, be it alcohol, drugs, prostitutes etc

people with drug and/or drink issues are less likely to actively seek employment and therefore more likely to be long term dole scroungers

i'm not paying for these types of people if i can help it

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if they were being tested for illegal drug use or were they being tested for being impaired on the job? Also, I can't help but think that without the union defending workers rights any worker failing a test (impaired?) would have been fired summarily.

It's none of an employers damn business what a person does in their own time as long as it isn't having a detrimental effect on their performance.

As regards our civil liberties we cede any ground to corporations and governments at our peril.

Back when my dad worked at the mill in the 70s they were only tested if they appeared to be impaired. But my dad knew what a lot of those guys were up to because they would all be in bars or at house parties and he knew they were snorting up and then heading off to their shift high as a kite. These days, if they give you a job offer, you have to pass a drug test - they screen for any illegal drugs and you don't get any second chances.

I think this makes sense in the US because it is so litigious - if someone is high and injures someone else at work, the employer is going to get sued. SO they try to head that off at the pass.