Congress Gives States the Go-Ahead to Drug Test for Unemployment Benefits

"Congress has paired a generous taxpayer subsidy for corporations that drug test with a slap in the face for those struggling to find work, feed their families and keep their homes.

Another money generating perk for Corporate America who's oppressed subject's are again deceived by the ruling class they elect.

No prosecutions fot Wall St thieves.

Tax breaks for Wall St thieves.

Oppression for the citizens.

And people think there's a difference of the partys? Vote them all out.

Wonder how many of our elected officials could pass the whiz quiz? I vote for random testing for all politicans!

While we're at it, and since we're paying our legislators to do a critical job (which they do very crappy job of doing) I want to see the results of their drug tests!

I would also like to see the results. With them being public officials and all, this type of information should already be on the table and required before even being allowed to run for any office.

This should be passed before requiring it of folks who are stressed out looking for work. Not that I condone drug or alcohol abuse, it just seems more fair to test those with a job before those without.

borehead 007, supposedly fines of up to 5 billion were placed on the largest financial institutions for their failures on the mortgage crisis, this in comparison to the hundreds of billions they raked in. Where's the justice? I tweeted Obama to make them hurt, but I don't believe he has that much control over the situation.

As with many jobs, the companies now require the individual to pay for the drug screening. I wouldn't be surprised if legislation requires this testing be done out of pocket for the recipient of benefits.

aMA, if they get fired, they are not entitled anyway.

OK, maybe if those receiving benefits are tested, we also need to test those who pay into the unemployment system. After all, if you are willing to take unemployment taxes from recreational drug users who perform their jobs and make money, but not give it back to the same people if they become unemployed, why are you collecting it in the first place? And if they are not covered, why should employees be forced to pay it?

bh- Not true. At one point in 2002 I was terminated. I filed with unemployment, and they found that I was terminated without cause and I was granted unemployment. Also if you do not file the correct paperwork, even someone fired for drug use can recieve benefits. Example, you must have 3 written warnings on file before termination to protect an employer from paying benefits. This is just anecdotal from places where I have worked in Management.

Roy, Unemployement taxes are taken from every worker. Its up to the employer to decide if they want to pay recreational (versus what? hardcore addicts) users to work for them. Lest you jump to any conclussion, I am pro-legalization of weed.

they found that I was terminated without cause and I was granted unemployment

you had a hearing, and they judged in your favor, right?

technically, there was never a hearing. The "case worker" asked multiple questions of me. Work history, had I ever been wrote up or recieved warnings etc etc. They then go ahead and qualify you for benefits, while they contact the employer to see if they want to fight the benefits. If the employer wants to fight, they must show just cause (in this case they had none).

On the bright side I was only on for 2 weeks, then took another position, although at a 35% pay cut.

Glad it worked out for ya.

Sucks about the wage loss, though.

its all good, both times I went back to work for less money, but made contacts to better jobs.

hope all is well with you sir, its been a while.

heh heh, I got outta bed this mornin' and I'm still breathin' so, life in't bad!!

Sounds like you're soldiering on, so thats good.

Roy Batty

OK, maybe if those receiving benefits are tested, we also need to test those who pay into the unemployment system. After all, if you are willing to take unemployment taxes from recreational drug users who perform their jobs and make money, but not give it back to the same people if they become unemployed, why are you collecting it in the first place? And if they are not covered, why should employees be forced to pay it?

Employers pay the unemployment tax....not employees.

In Washington State employees contribute ... I do.

But if other states are different, the question remains: why should businesses pay unemployment tax on an individual that won't be eligible to receive benefits?