Poliquin votes to let states require drug tests for jobless benefits
Source: Bangor Daily News
AUGUSTA, Maine One of the early measures rushed through the U.S. House of Representatives this year would allow states to require drug tests to receive unemployment compensation, a move that the LePage administration supports even though it has no plans to start testing anytime soon.
We need flexibility, said Julie Rabinowitz, director of policy, operations and communication for Maines Department of Labor.
The House last week approved a bill on a near party-line vote to toss out a federal regulation that set testing limits that effectively blocked states from doing any drug tests for Unemployment Compensation recipients except in narrow job categories where drug tests are mandatory, such as flying an airplane. The measure faces an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin joined his GOP colleagues on the vote because, he said, drug testing for welfare programs should be a states decision, not controlled by the whims of Washington.
<more>
Read more: https://bangordailynews.com/2017/02/24/politics/poliquin-votes-to-let-states-require-drug-tests-for-jobless-benefits/
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)raccoon
(31,089 posts)choie
(4,102 posts)Isnt welfare, asshole! (To Poliquin)
iluvtennis
(19,757 posts)...it's called VDI or SDI depending on your state's nomenclature. Employers add some contributions as well. I collected unemployment when my company did cutbacks last May. There was mucho money in my account from years and years of working. Why should I be drug tested to get the money I contributed.
GAH
MichMan
(11,786 posts)I don't contribute directly from my wages. My employer does, so there is an indirect affect. Those employers that have more layoffs are charged more than those who don't.
MichMan
(11,786 posts)Didn't know that some states deduct unemployment premiums from the workers directly.
If you contribute your entire working career and never draw unemployment, do you get all the accumulation when you retire?
What happens if your account doesn't have enough to pay you the entire time you are unemployed?
iluvtennis
(19,757 posts)...based on xx quarters worked. Since we are paying it constantly while working, I think it works like social security in that the $$ you contribute while you're currently working are being used to fund those currently being paid benefits.
samnsara
(17,570 posts)...are gonna be piiiiiiiiised
Doreen
(11,686 posts)You lose your job and have no money coming in at all so you can afford to run out and buy drugs. I receive SSDI and I am wondering when they will start expecting me to take drug tests also. I hope they pay for the tests because I could not afford them. I can not afford the drugs they would be testing me for.
bucolic_frolic
(42,665 posts)Unemployed lack the cash flow to do drugs.
They'd be better off testing wealthy people. Make it so they can't use a bank.
From a public policy standpoint, it's not cost-effective to test everyone.
Of course, they'll deduct the cost of the test from unemployment. Maybe
they can pay it off over time - with interest.
Warpy
(110,903 posts)I can think of no other reason for this horse shit than another "humiliate them more when they're down" Republicanism. After all, they all had to pass drug tests to get the jobs they were just laid off from.
This is just one more costly Republican boondoggle that does nothing but make a hate filled bunch of suburbanites feel righteous and superior because they still have jobs. It's addressing a problem that doesn't exist because they're testing the wrong population, as usual. It's meant to maximize profits, nothing else.
They clearly don't want to run screens on the down and out who can no longer function well enough to work. First, there aren't enough of them to increase profits. Second, someone might expect them to do something about any substance abuse problems they find, like treat them in inpatient rehab. Can't have that, you know, wrong industry to be really effective at generating huge profits for nothing.
Shell_Seas
(3,318 posts)So much for fiscally conservative.
riversedge
(69,718 posts)jmbar2
(4,832 posts)Dr. George Lundberg, former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and of Medscape, has decried the cost of such testing, given the absence of evidence to support it. At a cost of ~$45 per drug screen, it would cost ~$5,431,995,000 to screen all 120,711,000 full-time employees. As Dr. Lundberg stated, "This is terrific for the laboratory industry and all the attorneys who will argue these cases . . . but should we spend that kind of money? He wrote. In fact, we have not found one proper cost-benefit analysis of this process in the medical literature. Dr. Lundberg, among others, has expressed outrage at chemical McCarthyism.
Conveniently, Rick Scott pushed mandatory drug testingprovided, in part, by his wifes company, Solantic. Scott transferred his $62 million stake in the company to his wife only a few months before mandating drug testing for state employees and welfare recipients. Many companies provide drug testing, including Quest, LabCorps, Roche, and Mobile Diagnostic Testing. There are programs by DATIA and others on how to start your own testing business or become a contractor.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)Why is that? They still need to eat like the rest of us. Sorry guys, I voted for Emily Cain, but Maine 2nd district is full of red neck idiots and so we got Poliquin again.
MichMan
(11,786 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2017, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)
The rationale is that unemployment is intended to provide an income stream to tide people over while they are looking for a new job.
Since the vast majority of employers require passing a drug test as a condition for employment, it would stand to reason that someone who uses recreational drugs is not seriously intending to be looking for work. A responsible recreational user would quit using for the time period they were actively looking for a new job.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)PLEASE?
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)the benefits no matter what the drug tests show." Just another form of racial discrimination.
Blue Idaho
(4,988 posts)Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the drug testing there was ended because of the terrific financial cost and the virtually non-existent positive results?
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)"How drug addicts actually earn money."
I have the impression long-term drug addicts are entrepreneurial people; a drug habit is not a cheap hobby. Here's the point: if people are making enough money to afford to live AND to do drugs through participation in the underground economy, why would they risk arrest by applying for welfare?
But we know catching drug addicts isn't the point of this. Driving away people who legitimately need help is.