Suspension of benefits for an individual who fails to take or pass drug tests

[Bunnykid68]

Is there withholding on their check? Or is it the sole responsibility of the employer. I honestly do not remember, has been to many years.

 

[IndyBeerman]

You don't understand basic economics. There is a total cost to the employer of employing me. That total cost is what I am worth, and I must produce more for the employer than my total cost. If the employer is forced by the government to incur a cost for me, that cost comes out of my pocket, it's just hidden from me.

Business pays for nothing. All costs are recovered. In this case it's a double whammy - the consumer pays for all unemployment insurance costs in the end, but before he does, my pay is reduced by the amount of the insurance paid on my "behalf."

I understand basic economics just fine thank you, but you're very well mistaken if you think that your pay will be reduced on what is paid out on your behalf. They pay you what THEY think you are worth and what the market dictates it will take to keep you employed there and prevent you from leaving for some place else.

 

[mojo2530]

if someone is drawing unemployment than he worked and had money payed in on his behalf. the employer most definetly figures this cost into the total package of what the employee will cost him.( pay , insurance , etc...) thats MY money. if it wasnt then why is what i can draw based of whats payed in. dont lump hardworking americans in with people who live off the system for generations!!!!!! alot of people here ready to write off those having rough times huh?

 

[88GT]

It kind of is their money, as the premium came out of their compensation.

So does SS, but that doesn't mean I have any claim on what I paid in. The only way it's still an employee's money if is it never left the employee's possession or control.

It ceases belong to the individual that earned it when the government confiscates it to use for other people.

 

[dross]

I understand basic economics just fine thank you, but you're very well mistaken if you think that your pay will be reduced on what is paid out on your behalf. They pay you what THEY think you are worth and what the market dictates it will take to keep you employed there and prevent you from leaving for some place else.

Your argument proves you don't understand. They can't pay me only what they think I'm worth, they also have to pay me what I think I'm worth, since I have the freedom to sell my labor to someone else at any price I can get for it.

I would explain again, but I explained it well the first time. I'm not coming up with some radical idea here, this is simple and very basic economics. My labor is worth on the market whatever it is worth. No, if the costs the government adds to employing me were dropped tomorrow, it's not likely that I, the individual "I" would immediately get a raise. Yet over time it would equalize. It simply can't work any other way in a free market. Labor markets work the same way as other markets.

So does SS, but that doesn't mean I have any claim on what I paid in. The only way it's still an employee's money if is it never left the employee's possession or control.

It ceases belong to the individual that earned it when the government confiscates it to use for other people.

You're acting as if you don't understand what he is saying. If a thief steals my money, does it cease to belong to me? I still have a moral claim on that money.

When the government takes my money and tells me that it's to go for my retirement, I have a moral claim on that money, even if it's clear to me that it's been stolen. It doesn't cease to be mine just because the government takes it. When money is taken from me by force, it's still mine, even if I never see it again.

 

[MeAndMyXD]

Most people that get laid off are good people and dealt with this always.

The people that need to be tested are the people that are on welfare, that will get rid of alot of people that abuse this system.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Should we drug test everyone that gets a tax return?

That would save money too...

Or I guess could save money... I am still unsure if this will even save money...

I bet we can find a way to implement it that reduces benefits and costs us...

 

[MattYagPD01]

if someone is drawing unemployment than he worked and had money payed in on his behalf. the employer most definetly figures this cost into the total package of what the employee will cost him.( pay , insurance , etc...) thats MY money.

absolutley. typically 2 to 2.5% of your gross is paid by the employer to a government mandated insurance policy.

couldn't you do better by investing that 2.5% gross in somethiing of your choosing?

Also, you only get unemployment for 6 months regardless of how much you paid in. So if you paid in for 5 years, then got laid off, you could recieve it for six months (unless the fed comes in and extends it, and in that case, someone in Texas, or wherever, is now paying for your unemployment, not 'you paying into the program.')

M

 

[lane440]

This ia a cheap tactic to turn citizen against citizen. First of all People should demand that all Federal,state and local government past and present be subjected to this first ---- Hair,blood and urine testing . Why are people worried about a little unemployment $$$ witch was earned in the first place ( get on the band wagon sheeple) . Welfare and social security fraud is another story. How much money is wasted by govenment spending??? How much money is spent on government salaries,free lifetime heathcare, pensions , ect. Dont fall another slight of hand trick from these tax dollar sucking free loaders .

 

[INGunGuy]

See this is the thing I thought about unemployment benefits, there is a pool of money and there is an amount of time. If you draw MAX unemployment that money runs out in 6 months. When I was on unemployment years ago, if you didnt draw full unemployment then you could extend unemployment up to 12 months. Now it seems, and correct me if I am wrong, but a person can be on unemployment for 30 months drawing FULL unemployment. Correct?

INGunGuy

 

[Bummer]

absolutley. typically 2 to 2.5% of your gross is paid by the employer to a government mandated insurance policy.

couldn't you do better by investing that 2.5% gross in somethiing of your choosing?

Doesn't seem real likely. While some folks like to pretend otherwise, most folks lose pretty badly when they gamble on the stock market. That's how the sharks who do it all the time get rich.

Also, you only get unemployment for 6 months regardless of how much you paid in. So if you paid in for 5 years, then got laid off, you could recieve it for six months (unless the fed comes in and extends it, and in that case, someone in Texas, or wherever, is now paying for your unemployment, not 'you paying into the program.')

M

Isn't Unemployment currently running just over 90 weeks? It was a year ago. Republican factions, whose members apparently have jobs, are trying to cut it back. They're trying to say the undeclared depression is over. The folks whose jobs got shipped to Mexico, China, and India don't agree so much.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Unemployment Insurance fund was now a part of the general fund. I may be wrong but I can't help but suspect that the Congress robbed it to help "balance the budget" like they robbed the Social Security fund. Of course they would still be morally obligated to put it back, but that's not gonna happen. Democrat or Republican, they're all crooks.

 

[rambone]

What happens when the government starts adding all beneficiaries of tax-dollars to their little bio-sampling scheme? Public employees, Social Security recipients, veterans, veteran's children, cops, public school teachers, mail carriers, the climbing number of unemployed... they all receive tax dollars. How about beneficiaries of socialized medicine, public schools, and the rest of our socialist programs?

 

[MinuteManMike]

Save lots MORE $$$$.

Legalize all drugs.

 

[Grump01]

Yes!!! Should be expanded to Welfare and any other such programs.

 

[chefnick7]

I've read conservative stats that 20-25% would test positive. Even a 10% reduction would save billions not millions. My company drug tests and we spend only around $22 for each test because we buy in bulk and use only 2 clinics to test. I had to test in the military and most of my jobs why should someone on welfare or unemployment get away with not testing. that 10% number by the way is way lower than it would be.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Until everyone that wants to do drugs and still receive handouts uses methods to fool the tests.

Then we end up paying mostly the same amount out, plus not only testing - but all the administrative duties that come along with testing that many people.

 

[MattYagPD01]

Doesn't seem real likely. While some folks like to pretend otherwise, most folks lose pretty badly when they gamble on the stock market.

this is where you and I differ. This is the difference and the core to all of the discussions about our government. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO TAKE CARE OF YOU? I believe most of us are trying to take care of ourselves. I would recommend putting that 2.5% into a bank that is FDIC insured. you will still get more that way then by contributing to government run unemployment. (side note... put it into a savings account, not a checking account because checking accounts are not covered by FDIC. Ask your bank for the update to the FDIC rules.)

Isn't Unemployment currently running just over 90 weeks? It was a year ago. Republican factions, whose members apparently have jobs, are trying to cut it back.

No ... UNEMPLOYMENT that is funded at the state level is not. After you reach the 6 month or your cap dollar contributed ... you go on the federal dime. So now you are on another form of the Federal Dime!!!!

What did all of us 'Americans' do before unemployment? How in God's Name did we eat? How did we ever make it out of the Depression of 1920? Thats right.... 1920. NOT 1930'S. The depression in 1920 was deeper and harder then the great depression was. How did we ever survive that?


Back to the original question for the post (sorry for the brief hijack), Who will pay for the drug test? The employer? You? The Fed (you again)? Maybe we should make it a requirement for food stamps or any of the other 'free' government money programs to pay for the test out of the unemployment funds contributed, along with requiring them to work for the money they recieve. I can think of a few dozen parks in my town that need trash picked up daily. Or putting a street sweeper in a hand and a paycheck on the other end of the street. At least we can get a return on our investment ('OUR' being you and I that pay taxes and give these lazy people 'free' money)

M

 

[MattYagPD01]

Until everyone that wants to do drugs and still receive handouts uses methods to fool the tests.

Then we end up paying mostly the same amount out, plus not only testing - but all the administrative duties that come along with testing that many people.

Ya ... so we should give up... nowone should try anything... lets all go jump off a bridge together....

God Forbid anyone come up with a solution, cause then we might have to take care of ourselves or help our neighbors out WITHOUT SOMEONE STEELING MY MONEY AND GIVING TO THE NEIGHBOR AFTER TAKING A CUT FOR THEMSELVES.....

Kinda sounds like the mafia.... hey ... wait ....


naaaaaaa....... that can't be ..... it's the government.... they wouldn't .... they just want what's best for me......

 

[printcraft]

........dont lump hardworking americans in with people who live off the system for generations!!!!!! alot of people here ready to write off those having rough times huh?

This. /\



Unemployment means they were once "employed" and contributing.

I have no problem with those that contribute to the pool, taking from the pool when in need.

I've worked for decades and not taken unemployment or assistance of any kind (thank God) but
would like to think it would be an option to me if I ever needed it.

The one's that ONLY take from the pool are the ones that should have requirements such as these.
They are perfectly capable of working, for the most part, and choose not to.

 

[dross]

God Forbid anyone come up with a solution, cause then we might have to take care of ourselves or help our neighbors out WITHOUT SOMEONE STEELING MY MONEY AND GIVING TO THE NEIGHBOR AFTER TAKING A CUT FOR THEMSELVES.....
....

What's the "problem" this solution is supposed to be for?