New Florida Law: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[MobBoss]

Holy crap, I think you are actually right! I concede *tip of the hat*

Now there is a sig worthy quote if I ever saw one.

But you know what.. that kinda sucks then. You have to give up your right to privacy if you want a job?

Well, yes, and guess what, even you have voluntarily given up some of your rights to privacy if you've even filled out a job app. I mean you divulge a lot of private information when you do that dont you? Of course you do. Adding a drug screen to the mix is just a little more you divulge in trying to get that job (or in the threads case, to get that benefit).

I don't have to give that up here in Canada, for most jobs. Sure, for some it makes sense, but for most you shouldn't have to.

Well, you may not have pee'd in a cup, but you have certainly waived some of your privacy (to an extent) in filling out job apps or submitting resumes. Everyone does.

 

[Archbob]

Holy crap, I think you are actually right! I concede *tip of the hat*

But you know what.. that kinda sucks then. You have to give up your right to privacy if you want a job?

I don't have to give that up here in Canada, for most jobs. Sure, for some it makes sense, but for most you shouldn't have to.

Its perfectly reasonable for companies to not want to hire drug addicts.

Also, does Canada consent to an invasion by the USA?

I mean most of your people live near or close to the border, meaning that they are just dying to be Americans!

 

[warpus]

Hey, when you're right, you're right

Well, yes, and guess what, even you have voluntarily given up some of your rights to privacy if you've even filled out a job app. I mean you divulge a lot of private information when you do that dont you?

Yeah, but answering what previous jobs you may have held and peeing in a cup is a wee bit different.

First of all it's like being assumed of doing something illegal and having to prove them wrong instead of being assumed innocent. "Here, pee in this cup to prove you are clean" vs "Your performance at work has been crappy and you come in with red eyes every morning, prove to us that you are clean". The second is normal to me, the first is not.

Second of all, I wouldn't feel comfortable working for someone who makes me pee in a cup. I find that very disrespectful and how can I respect someone who I know doesn't respect me?

That's just how I feel about it but I don't come from a place where drug tests are routine so it's a very alien thing to me.

 

[civver_764]

Then that makes eligibility conditional.

Fine. But it still shouldn't be conditional on drug usage.

First, I didn't say that it did. I said it was a brain teaser. Second, how do you know? Don't infer from this that I mean most welfare recipients are unwilling to work, I mean I want to know how you have come to the conclusion that it is not the case.

Because unemployment benefits do not get you 80% of an "average middle class life", the incentive to not work simply isn't that great. Most welfare recipients come from poorer areas and so probably don't have the education for that kind of job either. And there also are not enough jobs for everyone in the first place, this is especially true in the poorer areas where welfare is more widespread.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, but answering what previous jobs you may have held and peeing in a cup is a wee bit different.

Well, its only different on a matter of scale, not in what it actually is. The act in doing it is still you offering up voluntarily parts of your private life.

First of all it's like being assumed of doing something illegal and having to prove them wrong instead of being assumed innocent. "Here, pee in this cup to prove you are clean" vs "Your performance at work has been crappy and you come in with red eyes every morning, prove to us that you are clean". The second is normal to me, the first is not.

You are right, however, there is nothing wrong with an employer asking you to 'prove' something. They ask you to prove your education by giving them your transscripts/diplomas. They ask you to prove your criminal background by running security checks on you. Proving you are 'clean' to your employer obviously makes you a more desirable employee than say someone who was not 'clean' wouldnt you think?

Second of all, I wouldn't feel comfortable working for someone who makes me pee in a cup. I find that very disrespectful and how can I respect someone who I know doesn't respect me?

And that is your absolute right and choice to make. If your desire for respect outweighs your desire for a big paycheck, then so be it, thats your choice.

That's just how I feel about it but I don't come from a place where drug tests are routine so it's a very alien thing to me.

And thank goodness for that, eh? Havent you mentioned before that your're able to get away smoking a doobie at work every once in awhile?

 

[RedRalph]

And that is your absolute right and choice to make. If your desire for respect outweighs your desire for a big paycheck, then so be it, thats your choice.

Out of a matter of interest, if you take this sentence in isolation, which would you choose?

 

[MobBoss]

Out of a matter of interest, if you take this sentence in isolation, which would you choose?

Sounds like a great question for a thread Ralph. Make it.

 

[Aegis]

Let me get this straight: you are claiming people didn't work much in the USSR?

I think it means 1/3 of the nation's population, implying that most of the population have crap factory jobs.

 

[civver_764]

I thought it was making a statement about overcrowded working conditions.

 

[Aegis]

If 1/3 of the USSR was working in one factory, I imagine that it would be pretty crowded.

 

[amadeus]

Let me get this straight: you are claiming people didn't work much in the USSR?

Yes. They may have been in the factories for long hours, but there was low productivity relative to their ability. If Soviet workers worked as much as you say they did, why was consumer goods output so low? Why did the USSR suffer from chronic shortages? Why did the Soviet economy stagnate?

 

[warpus]

Well, its only different on a matter of scale, not in what it actually is. The act in doing it is still you offering up voluntarily parts of your private life.

Peeing shouldn't be a part of the application process unless you're applying to a job that has something to do with penises or peeing, such as German porn, or whatever.

You are right, however, there is nothing wrong with an employer asking you to 'prove' something. They ask you to prove your education by giving them your transscripts/diplomas. They ask you to prove your criminal background by running security checks on you. Proving you are 'clean' to your employer obviously makes you a more desirable employee than say someone who was not 'clean' wouldnt you think?

Sure, but to me there is a huge difference between proving that you have a degree and being asked to pee in a cup. It's a bit embarassing and humiliating, the second.. the first, not so much.

And that is your absolute right and choice to make. If your desire for respect outweighs your desire for a big paycheck, then so be it, thats your choice.

Yeah, but in your country the federal government gives incentives for companies to do this. Meaning that a lot of them do. Meaning that sometimes you don't really have this choice if you want a job.

You can say "ah well, your choice" to that but I wouldn't want to live in a place where you have to choose between giving up your right to privacy vs getting a job.

And thank goodness for that, eh? Havent you mentioned before that your're able to get away smoking a doobie at work every once in awhile?

Heh no, wasn't me. I do not use substances at work. Never have, never will. It's wrong.

What's also wrong is an employer caring what you do outside of the scope of your job - such as lighting one up during off hours. If it doesn't affect your job performance, it's none of their business.

 

[civver_764]

Heh no, wasn't me. I do not use substances at work. Never have, never will. It's wrong.

Depends on the job. I can think of a lot of occupations where smoking weed erryday before work would probably enhance my performance tbh.

 

[MobBoss]

Peeing shouldn't be a part of the application process unless you're applying to a job that has something to do with penises or peeing, such as German porn, or whatever.

Dont get focused so much on the peeing part, its the drug part that really matters, and there are a lot of jobs that doing drugs would be a detriment or job hazard to.

Sure, but to me there is a huge difference between proving that you have a degree and being asked to pee in a cup. It's a bit embarassing and humiliating, the second.. the first, not so much.

Well, that all depends on where you got your degree from....

Yeah, but in your country the federal government gives incentives for companies to do this. Meaning that a lot of them do. Meaning that sometimes you don't really have this choice if you want a job.

Well, i'm not sure the incentive is merely because they screen for drugs.....

And there are plenty of employers that dont screen for drugs. As long as you can say 'do you want fries with that' your're good!

You can say "ah well, your choice" to that but I wouldn't want to live in a place where you have to choose between giving up your right to privacy vs getting a job.

Since not every employer does this for every job, dont worry.

Heh no, wasn't me. I do not use substances at work. Never have, never will. It's wrong.

Good for you.

What's also wrong is an employer caring what you do outside of the scope of your job - such as lighting one up during off hours. If it doesn't affect your job performance, it's none of their business.

I tend to agree, however, part of the facebook era disagrees with that, and many companies consider you represent them as an employee 24/7 no matter what you do. If you have an employee thats on the front page of the local paper for getting busted for drugs, it doesnt shine very favorably on your company, right or wrong.

 

[JollyRoger]

Florida taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.5 million in legal fees — including nearly $1 million to civil-rights lawyers —because of Gov. Rick Scott's failed push to force welfare applicants and tens of thousands of state workers to submit to suspicionless drug tests.

The state agreed earlier this month to pay $600,000 to the Florida Justice Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which represented a single father who sued the Department of Children and Families over a 2011 welfare drug-testing law. The payment, issued this week, was part of a settlement in the case, abandoned by Scott earlier this year after four years of litigation and multiple court decisions striking down the law.

A federal appeals court ruled in December that the state's mandatory, suspicionless drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. After the ruling, Scott decided to walk away from the lawsuit.

"We are proud to have brought an end to the policy,” Florida Justice Institute Executive Director Randall Berg said.

Other costs in the welfare drug-testing case totaled at least $309,000, including $13,300 for Avram Mack, a psychiatrist and Georgetown University School of Medicine professor whose testimony was banned by a judge. The court concluded that Mack was not qualified to be an expert in the case.

The state also paid the GrayRobinson law firm at least $160,000 to represent the Department of Children and Families.

In a separate case, Scott and lawyers representing a state workers' union reached agreement this spring on the types of Florida government employees who can be forced to undergo suspicionless drug tests. The union, represented by the ACLU, sued Scott after he issued an executive order shortly after taking office in 2011 ordering all workers in agencies under his control, as well as job applicants, to undergo random drug screens.

A federal judge put the policy on hold after the ACLU filed suit that summer, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Scott could not constitutionally justify drug testing for all types of state employees without a reason, though it said testing could occur for some workers such as those in "safety-sensitive" positions. The appeals court ordered Scott and lawyers for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, to come up with a list of jobs that could be subject to testing.

Under a settlement agreement filed in federal court in April, the state agreed to pay the ACLU $375,000 in legal costs for the drawn-out litigation and to limit the drug tests to about 7,000 workers in 157 different job classes, a fraction of the 34,000 employees Scott's blanket policy was intended to cover.

The taxpayer tab for that lawsuit totaled at least $675,000, including $180,000 for a private lawyer hired by the state, Thomas Bishop, and $120,000 for a special master to oversee the negotiations with the ACLU.

The amount spent on both lawsuits — at least $1.5 million — would cover about 8,900 days of residential substance-abuse treatment, based on average costs for in-patient treatment in Florida.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article25114639.html

No word on if the governor and the legislators who voted for this nonsense were drug tested.

 

[BvBPL]

Looks to me like the state got off easy on those fees.

 

[Formaldehyde]

i can't really believe it costs that much for some lawyer Scott hired with taxpayer money to tell him on day one:

Dude! It's obviously unconstitutional! Get a clue! You can't just make up authoritarian edicts in this country, even if a sufficient number of Floridians were so daft to elect you in the first place. You aren't a tyrant who can do whatever you want. You are an elected official who swore an oath to uphold the laws you are deliberately ignoring.

Scott should have to personally pay this bill, along with all the others caused by his massive arrogance and ignorance.

 

[CaptainF]

Drug tests are complete horsepucky and no one should ever work for someone who uses them.

Drug tests are a ludicrous invasion of privacy and a shoddy excuse to exclude "certain kinds of people" from getting a job as a way of organized disenfranchisement. It's not even accurate to call them drug tests, since pretty much every drug besides marijuana leaves your system after a few days. You could clock out of work on Friday, blow lines of cocaine or pop pills all night long into Saturday, and be good to go for a piss test on Monday. But if you smoke a single joint a week before a drug test you can still come up positive.

The one time I can remember taking a pre-employment drug test was for a position at a grass seed company, and while I was in line, all the rednecks around me were bragging about how they "kept the bar open" past closing time the night before with all the money they were spending on liquor. But of course, cannabis is the real problem in our workplace.

It's unfortunately not surprising that this corrupt welfare drug testing policy has proven to be a hopeless, expensive failure. I suppose Rick Scott really wanted to personally profit by those personal connections to drug testing companies through government fiat, but it totally blew up in his face. What a joke! I am so very glad I don't live in Florida.

For more information

 

[Hygro]

Drug tests violate the 14th amendment. How can you be denied for the physical composition of your own person?

 

[CaptainF]

And that is your absolute right and choice to make. If your desire for respect outweighs your desire for a big paycheck, then so be it, thats your choice.

And there are plenty of employers that dont screen for drugs. As long as you can say 'do you want fries with that' your're good!

Hah, typical MobBoss condescension, and so typically untrue.

In my experience, the jobs that pay around minimum wage with long crappy hours and few benefits are the jobs that force you to piss in a cup. However, many jobs that pay $20 or $30+ an hour don't require a drug test at any stage of employment. Luckily for me, that's the kind of job that I have!