Recommended Posts
QuoteDon't most insurance policies have investigations when they get claims
SSDI requires doctor statements and re-investigation each year. Those commiting fraud (and yes, there are those who fake back injuries and most are caught) are punished harshly. In my case, AIDS often leaves me extremely wore down and sick but, I do work at my homebased embroidery and t-shirt printing business (approved by SSDI). They are also aware that I skydive from time to time. I am also awaiting my paperwork to enter the Ticket to Work program. SSDI is not a form of welfare and should not be confused as such as it is an insurance that each and every worker and employer pays into. A typical problem that many with an illness have is getting work or being able to maintain a schedule after getting a job. Until the Family and Medical Leave Act (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/) those with a serious illness would be fired for missing a few days of work and ultimately lose their insurance. Something has to pick them up and help to keep them alive when they become too ill or cannot get employment due to their illness and that something is SSDI, that inwhich they paid into.
QuoteMany who go on these programs take out far more than they put in.
Wrong. What a person recieves on SSDI is related to the amount they paid into based on a percentage of their earnings. A person who made $50,000.00 per year recieves more than a person who made $20,000.00 per year. I am somewhat lucky in that I earned in the $50,000.00 range for a good number of years but, it is still not a pot of gold. Believe me.
Oh, and I did not take it as an attack on myself but, wished to distinguished between the two, SSDI and welfare.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteWhere is your proof! I have cited and linked to the governments own statistics.
The government has provided their own statistics proving that the government is spending ur tax dollars wisely? It must be the truth then.
As for my proof I have seen it with my own eyes.Quote***Where did his comment compare Clinton vs Bush?
Did I imply that his comment did? I think not. I posted cites that showed a reverse trend from what Clinton did to what happened after Bush took office.
Well then what did Bush vs Clinton have to do with this thread?QuoteBut, you being in Canada, what concern is it of yours? It's not your tax dollars. Please explain.
Most of the social problems in the US are mirrored here in Canada. Many of the current issues in America are also current hot issues here. We have social services much like you (even more so) and we have a great deal of abuse. I happen to agree with the principle of the thread. I do not see how my being Canadian prevents me from having a perspective on the debate.QuoteWhat did I say that implied that the vast majority of recipients are dirty hippies
Your use of terms such as "stick it to the man" and "freedom, baby" are typically associated with hippies. I merely deduced this to indicated you are speaking of hiipies.
I was simply depicting the anti-establishment culture we have in our society today. No hippies were harmed in the creation of that statement.QuoteYou imply that welfare recipients are drug user.
Oh what garbage. You are seeing what you want to see in my comments so you have an excuse to get hurt, offended and outraged, which will allow you to go on an indignant self rightious "I'm so offended" rampage. I have repeated ad-nauseum that I do not beleive all welfare recipients are drug users and have already challenged you in this thread to point out where I have once said/implied that all welfare users (or even the large majotity of them) are drug users and you have yet to clarify that accusation. Where have I said that?Quote***What is "our kind"?
Got a mirror?
Oh.....here we go again. Are you capable of having a debate about a matter such as this without pouting and name calling? I just tried to point out in my last post that it was not personal yet you are going menstrual on me.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteSSDI requires doctor statements and re-investigation each year.
Well then why did you ask why you should be tested if you take welfare? Do you take the SSDI investigations as an accusation that all SSDI recipients are abusing? Why take drug testing for welfare as an accusation that all welfare are druggies?
QuoteSSDI is not a form of welfare and should not be confused as such as it is an insurance that each and every worker and employer pays into.
It is a social security type program. Different beuracracy. Many welfare recipients paid into welfare with their taxes before going on it too.
QuoteMany who go on these programs take out far more than they put in.
QuoteWrong. What a person recieves on SSDI is related to the amount they paid into based on a percentage of their earnings. A person who made $50,000.00 per year recieves more than a person who made $20,000.00 per year.
What if you earned $50,000 per year for one year before getting a disablility and then were on it for ten years?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
Actually, thanks to Bill Clintons Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act the number of recipients were down until 2002 when they started to rise again. Welfare number were extremely high when Clinton took office and were extremely low when he left. Only after Bush took office did the numbers rise again
All of this is more likely due to the improving economy throughout the 90s, followed by the rather unpleasant (speaking from personal experience) job environment starting in mid 2001 and accelerated badly that fall.
QuoteThe government has provided their own statistics proving that the government is spending ur tax dollars wisely? It must be the truth then.
As for my proof I have seen it with my own eyes.
The government does provide their own statistics that shows how badly they have managed the business of running the country.
As for your proof of "seen it with my own eyes". Many have claimed to have seen Big Foot, also. Where's your proof? Cite, please.
QuoteWell then what did Bush vs Clinton have to do with this thread?
I have already stated such and feel no need to reiterate.
QuoteMost of the social problems in the US are mirrored here in Canada. Many of the current issues in America are also current hot issues here. We have social services much like you (even more so) and we have a great deal of abuse. I happen to agree with the principle of the thread. I do not see how my being Canadian prevents me from having a perspective on the debate.
Canada does appear to have no type of culture of its own and happily bends over backwards for Washington D.C.. Maybe, Canadians should push away from the U.S. and grow a back bone and stop trying to be Americans or, they should just admit that they are Americans and start paying U.S. taxes and start flying the stars and stripes.
I wonder, what do you actually do to remedy what is wrong with your country? Do you write letters to your representatives? I do. Have you ever talked, personally to your congressman/woman? I have spoken to Roy Blunt on several occassion and have even had a return phone call from the man. I do not agree with many of his views but, he does listen and that is a start. Do you attend rallies? I do. Do you sign petitions that reflect your views? I always do. Are you even involved at all in the issues that concerns you? The U.S. evolved from grassroot activism and continues to do so. If not for the concerns of the common man, the U.S. would be just another country ruled by an elitist class that cares nothing about the well being of its citizens.
QuoteI was simply depicting the anti-establishment culture we have in our society today. No hippies were harmed in the creation of that statement.
Anti-establishment culture? Are you speaking of those who oppose an ever controlling government that is becoming further removed from the people? I believe that a government has no right to listen in on my phone calls, read my mail, test my body, tell me where to go, what to read, what to say, search my personal affects, what to think, what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what I can do with my body or my mind. I oppose the making of new laws based on fear mongering. I oppose a government that meddles in the affairs of another country (Canada included). I oppose the waste of the taxpayers money for the whims of big business. I oppose unwarranted drug testing in the hope of catching a few while subjecting the many to suspicion (if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear argument that some often raise is a slippery slope that leads to further restrictions). The land of the free is slowly becoming the land of the controlled and I oppose an ever controlling government.
QuoteOh what garbage. You are seeing what you want to see in my comments so you have an excuse to get hurt, offended and outraged, which will allow you to go on an indignant self rightious "I'm so offended" rampage. I have repeated ad-nauseum that I do not beleive all welfare recipients are drug users and have already challenged you in this thread to point out where I have once said/implied that all welfare users (or even the large majotity of them) are drug users and you have yet to clarify that accusation. Where have I said that?
You may not have said it outright but, you imply it by contending a wide sweep. You can push for it in your country but, until you become a citizen in the U.S. you have no right to suggest a wide sweep for U.S. welfare recipients.
QuoteOh.....here we go again. Are you capable of having a debate about a matter such as this without pouting and name calling? I just tried to point out in my last post that it was not personal yet you are going menstrual on me.
You asked, I replied. It was not a p.a.. I am assuming that you are an staunch conservative. If you were to tell me to look in the mirror, I would not consider it an attack but to look at what I am really saying and to consider the further implications of wanting something now without considering the far future outcome. What seems like a fine idea one day often grows into a monster that cannot be easily controlled on another day. You suggest wide sweep drug testing but give no suggestion of what to do next. That appears to me to be short-sighted. I suggest that testing be done for those who do not progress in programs designed to ween one from welfare and then provide further help. Merely kicking someone from welfare who may have a drug problem would lead to another problem and then another until thay are locked up in prison only to someday be released to continue on the wrong path. For those who continue to show no improvement, I have no suggestion. On one hand, I am compelled to say "to hell with them". On the other, I am reminded that they are human and that I would not kick a dog that shows no improvement so, I would not be compelled to do so to another human being for an obvious weakness in character. I am not a christian but, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are something that we all should remind ourselves of (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). In a time of dispair, would you hope that others would kick you? Or, would you hope that someone will see your dispair and continue to help?
For the record, I would agree to substance testing but, only for those who show no progress. I would also sugest that a fact finding study be conducted to expose alcohol abuse as alcohol is a major problem in most societies.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
If the Captain of the Exxon Valdez had been given unannounced breathalyzer tests, one of the largest destructive oil spills could have been prevented. As for drugs: yes, testing is not 100% proven, but the person being tested can appeal the results. I don't think you have any clue about drug use in the work place. I saw both pilots and mechanics busted for alcohol and drug use. Most of the ones I knew never appealed or retested. You cannot have crane operators, ship/ boat captains, train engineers operating under the influence of anything because they are a danger to themselves and the public. Would you want your wife and kids to board a train or plane with a couple of drunks or druggies upfront? That is why random testing is mandatory in these skills. It's about safety in the work place over some person who thinks that peeing in a cup is an invasion of his/her privacy or lost trust from an employer. (If I didn't know any better, I would say you are preparing your skills as a defense attorney. Good luck.).QuoteQuoteQuote
I'm opposed to drug testing in/for employment
Why? Even skipping obvious cases like school bus drivers and commercial pilots.
I'm opposed primarily to random workplace testing, and less so to pre-employment tests because:
Testing implies a lack of trust by the employer.
A positive test doesn't mean a person is under the influence of a drug at the time of the test or while at work. Half-lives of different drugs can range between days and months. For example, let's say a person visited a country where MJ was legal and smoked some. A couple days later he has a random UA at work and fails due to the presence of MJ metabolites. He broke no laws, and he was never under the influence at work. "...no conclusions can be drawn as to when a particular drug was taken or how much was consumed..."
A negative test doesn't mean that a person is not using drugs. For example, an employee snorts a bunch of cocaine before work in the morning, and is feeling pretty good at work for a few hours. At 3 PM he's given a UA and passes. Ditto for LSD, MDMA, meth, and others. "...no conclusions can be drawn as to when a particular drug was taken or how much was consumed...."
False positives do occur.
I'm opposed to testing of drivers and pilots for the same reasons.
BTW, I don't use any illegal drugs.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
Quote
I'm opposed primarily to random workplace testing, and less so to pre-employment tests because:
Testing implies a lack of trust by the employer.
So you're probably opposed to credit checks the financial institutions run on their employees, as well as previous conviction or TB checks for school employees, or checking driving records for bus drivers? After all, it all implies a lack of trust.
Quote
A positive test doesn't mean a person is under the influence of a drug at the time of the test or while at work. Half-lives of different drugs can range between days and months. For example, let's say a person visited a country where MJ was legal and smoked some. A couple days later he has a random UA at work and fails due to the presence of MJ metabolites. He broke no laws, and he was never under the influence at work. "...no conclusions can be drawn as to when a particular drug was taken or how much was consumed..."
Your statement assumes that an employer who tests for drusg only cares about drug usage at work, and therefore an employer who does not test for drugs, probably does not care about drug usage at work at all. My understanding is that the employer who tests for drugs is stiving to hire employees who do not do drugs at all, not just those who do not do drugs at work. It does not make difference then how legal or illegal was the drug usage, nor it makes any difference when and how much was taken.
Quote
A negative test doesn't mean that a person is not using drugs. For example, an employee snorts a bunch of cocaine before work in the morning, and is feeling pretty good at work for a few hours. At 3 PM he's given a UA and passes.
False positives do occur.
Yes, the tests are not perfect. The law enforcement cannot catch all the criminals either. However it doesn't mean the police is useless just because they do have "false positives" and "false negatives".
The (approved) tests are reliable enough to be useful. And if anyone does not agree with the test results, there is a right to appeal.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Richards 0
QuoteAs for your proof of "seen it with my own eyes". Many have claimed to have seen Big Foot, also.
So you suspect I am making up the welfare queen relatives I have?
I have known many who abuse the system and it bugged the hell out of me. Unless I happen to have come across a highly mis-representative sample it stands to reason that this is a problem.
When we are allowed to conduct tests we will get some stats. I will send them to you with a smile
QuoteCanada does appear to have no type of culture of its own......
You are misinformed
Quote....... and happily bends over backwards for Washington D.C..
Actually no we don't. We did not go into Iraq when many did. We also have wrestled back and forth about NAFTA issues and the arctic. If anything Canada's history has been more one of snubbing washington (which I felt was wrong to do)
QuoteMaybe, Canadians should push away from the U.S........
Our largest trading partner? Thanks but I do not wish to have to become a beaver hunter for lack of a real economy.
Quote.......and grow a back bone and stop trying to be Americans
Do most Canadians you meet express a desire to be more American? I have not seen that.
Quoteor, they should just admit that they are Americans and start paying U.S. taxes and start flying the stars and stripes.
Actually we aren't. We pay taxes here, have the Queen as a figurehead, and a few other subtle differences
QuoteI wonder, what do you actually do to remedy what is wrong with your country? Do you write letters to your representatives?
Yes.
QuoteHave you ever talked, personally to your congressman/woman?
No. Correspondence works fine.
QuoteDo you attend rallies? I do.
Nah. Rent-a-crowd drives me nuts.
QuoteDo you sign petitions that reflect your views?
It depends on how strongly I beleive in the issue
QuoteI believe that a government has no right to listen in on my phone calls, read my mail, test my body, tell me where to go, what to read, what to say, search my personal affects, what to think, what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what I can do with my body or my mind.
Fine. You have that right. In light of your desire to be free from your government do you still feel "the man" has an obligation to carry you?
QuoteThe land of the free is slowly becoming the land of the controlled and I oppose an ever controlling government.
Fine. Do not take government assistance
QuoteYou may not have said it outright but, you imply it by contending a wide sweep.
No I did not. You are seeing what you want to see. DO police roadside DUI checks imply that the police beleive that all drivers are impaired. No. It would be ridiculous to say that as it was ridiculous for you to claim I was painting all welfare recipients with the same brush. You are the one using fear mongering techniques. It's the old "they're out to get us" routine.
QuoteYou can push for it in your country but, until you become a citizen in the U.S. you have no right to suggest a wide sweep for U.S. welfare recipients.
No Right? Are you absolutely sure you are not drinking? I can say whatever I like. I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum. Do we now have rules limiting discussion to matters that pertain to your own country? Better go ask the moderators to make it a bannable offense for a Canadian to discuss US policy, for Americans to discuss policies in contries other than their own. Let's ask for clarification;
Hey Moderators.........am I allowed to discuss american policies here as a canadian? Will I be banned? Sued?
Guess what. I do agree with that law and I wish we would bring it in here. I will continue to say so despite your protests
QuoteYou asked, I replied. It was not a p.a..
You refered to "our kind". I asked for clarification and you said "look in the mirror" . What am I looking for? Is our kind blond with thinning hair? Is "our kind" identified by a complete lack of fashion sense (according to my wife). I was looking for an operational definition of "our kind" and I got an eighth grader response
QuoteI am assuming that you are an staunch conservative.
Wrong again. You cannot know that from this one thread. I look at the issues on a case by case basis and make my own decisions rather than letting either wing tell me what I think.
QuoteYou suggest wide sweep drug testing but give no suggestion of what to do next. That appears to me to be short-sighted. I suggest that testing be done for those who do not progress in programs designed to ween one from welfare and then provide further help. Merely kicking someone from welfare who may have a drug problem would lead to another problem and then another until thay are locked up in prison only to someday be released to continue on the wrong path. For those who continue to show no improvement, I have no suggestion. On one hand, I am compelled to say "to hell with them". On the other, I am reminded that they are human and that I would not kick a dog that shows no improvement so, I would not be compelled to do so to another human being for an obvious weakness in character. I am not a christian but, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are something that we all should remind ourselves of (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). In a time of dispair, would you hope that others would kick you? Or, would you hope that someone will see your dispair and continue to help?
You have to get off this "oh the big neo-con meany is trying to kick people when they are down" trip. I have argued both sides of the fence on this forum and have leaned towards supporive social programs in most cases. As I stated before when I spent time on workers compensation and had to go for follow up checks to prevent abuse i did not feel humiliated, degraded, violated, kicked-when-down, subjugated...and all the other buzz words the entitlement generation spew out when someone dares to suggest some accountability. I actually appreciated what they were trying to do. Practically it would not be feasible to test all recipients but it should be allowed. It should be randomized and they should be able to target certain individuals for frequent tests if there is reason to suspect. How in the hell does that qualify as kicking someone when they are down?
That is the classic self pity guilt trip employed by the entitlement generation when someone says...."accountability". As for kicking some guy off of welfare I would not do that. If he tests positiv he would get one chance to enter into a treatment program (unless he is just a casual pot user) at which time he would have follow up checks and he would be advised that future use could lead to his benefits being denied. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuotePractically it would not be feasible to test all recipients but it should be allowed. It should be randomized and they should be able to target certain individuals for frequent tests if there is reason to suspect.
Then we do agree on this topic. As I have stated "For the record, I would agree to substance testing but, only for those who show no progress. I would also sugest that a fact finding study be conducted to expose alcohol abuse as alcohol is a major problem in most societies.". I would also think that utility bills should be paid directly from an account setup for such and the same for housing. Food stamps are already paid out in the form of a card that can only be used for food. Why cannot the same be done with welfare dollars? It would greatly end the majority of abuse. With food stamp abuse, I have personally seen it will entering a grocery store and being asked by a person if I would buy their stamps. I declined and I had some words to say about it. I do think, however, that there is a perception that the majority of recipients are freeloaders. The welfare reform of 1996 placed time frames inwhich a person may collect. States do provide training to put people back to work. The programs do work. I would think that most people would prefer to be making more money than welfare provides. Not surprising, when the number of welfare recipients went down the number of food stamp recipients went up as most recipients have families and the pay they now recieved from employment did not provide enough to cover every expense. It would be easy to say 'get a better job' but not knowing every aspect of a certian situation, that would be premature to say. There is a reason why a minority of people stayed on welfare for a long period and it is because welfare paid out more than what minimum wage paid. That took away the incentive for those people to work and to stay on the dole. As I stated, pay out welfare to the utilities, landlord and what have you. Provide more training that will make a person desirable to a prospective employer. I think we agree on at least 99% of this topic.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteThen we do agree on this topic. As I have stated "For the record, I would agree to substance testing but, only for those who show no progress. I would also sugest that a fact finding study be conducted to expose alcohol abuse as alcohol is a major problem in most societies.". I would also think that utility bills should be paid directly from an account setup for such and the same for housing. Food stamps are already paid out in the form of a card that can only be used for food. Why cannot the same be done with welfare dollars? It would greatly end the majority of abuse. With food stamp abuse, I have personally seen it will entering a grocery store and being asked by a person if I would buy their stamps. I declined and I had some words to say about it. I do think, however, that there is a perception that the majority of recipients are freeloaders. The welfare reform of 1996 placed time frames inwhich a person may collect. States do provide training to put people back to work. The programs do work. I would think that most people would prefer to be making more money than welfare provides. Not surprising, when the number of welfare recipients went down the number of food stamp recipients went up as most recipients have families and the pay they now recieved from employment did not provide enough to cover every expense. It would be easy to say 'get a better job' but not knowing every aspect of a certian situation, that would be premature to say. There is a reason why a minority of people stayed on welfare for a long period and it is because welfare paid out more than what minimum wage paid. That took away the incentive for those people to work and to stay on the dole. As I stated, pay out welfare to the utilities, landlord and what have you. Provide more training that will make a person desirable to a prospective employer. I think we agree on at least 99% of this topic.
Maybe some misundestanding. While I feel that extra effort should be put into monitoring those who show no progress the possibility of being hit with a random test should be there for all.
It's not about judging all recipients or kicking people when they are down.
While you may or may not beleive me, I have personally seen a great deal of abuse and resent it. Furthermore it takes funds away from those that need it.
I agree with your position on measures to get people up and self reliant. I also have issues with the fact that wekfare provides a better life than mimimum wage since there is obviously an incentive conflict there.
Part of my desire (and I suspect tat of some other proponents) is out of interest for those on welfare. It is not just about catching bad guys, it is about making people get on with their lives. As I stated I have some relatives who have now made welfare the family business. An aunt (actually second cousin) has been on welfare her whole life. She parties, hangs out with freinds (in her subsidized housing condo complex) and whatnot. This was the example here children saw their whole lives. Trust me she would not take any opportunity to get back into the work force unless she was kicked in the ass to do so.
Anyway, fast forward many years, her daughter (about my age) drops out of high school has a baby and moves out into subsidised housing and goes on welfare (as does the son). They stay up late, drink and smoke pot with their freinds while playing cards until 2 or 3 in the morning, sleep in until about 11:00 AM to 1:00PM. By now the daughers son is about work/welfare age and undoubtedly is following in the family tradition. I have seen multiple cases like this. My problem is that the young kid has no chance because that is all he knows. If it was someone close to me that I cared about I would want the government to be on their case kicking their ass to get up and moving. If some get thrown off welfare several others will be scared into staying off the dope (and I am just fine with alcohol testing) and may actually become something. It is actually a tough love approach. In the long run this sort of testing will not only save dollars but based n what I have seen it may give some zero ambition types the kick in the ass they need to get a life.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Lindsey 0
I always wonder what qualifies in people's minds as "welfare." Are tax breaks "welfare?" What about federally guaranteed student loans? Are they "welfare?" What if part of a hospital bill was written off ten years ago? Was that welfare?
Do monetary *perks* from the government only count as "welfare" if you're poor? If a upper-middle class person receives some benefits here and there....do those count as "welfare," or is there a different name for it because he makes enough money to send his children to college?
I think drug testing for welfare is just fine, as long as there is no discrimination between kinds of welfare.
Peace~
linz
Do monetary *perks* from the government only count as "welfare" if you're poor? If a upper-middle class person receives some benefits here and there....do those count as "welfare," or is there a different name for it because he makes enough money to send his children to college?
I think drug testing for welfare is just fine, as long as there is no discrimination between kinds of welfare.
Peace~
linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Amazon 7
QuoteI think drug testing for welfare is just fine, as long as there is no discrimination between kinds of welfare.
They should make the politicians in local to national positions take it as well.. they are getting government money as well as all that private "campaign contributions" are they not on the dole as well??? Some of the behaviors we see in the last few years might be able to be finally explained...
Hell we should test the bureaucrats too.. they are on the public dole as well.. especially after seeing how hard some of them work at their jobs
1969912 0
I should have been more specific. I don't have a problem with pre-employment testing. It's the random drug tests that imply distrust. Financial checks are not done after hiring, ditto for criminal convictions and driving records (Some of those may be done by the govt. where a security clearance is involved though, and there my be driving record checks for bus drivers). I understand your point.
I've never seen an employer drug test policy that mentions anything other than a desire to prevent non-sober employees in the workplace. None have mentioned drug use outside of work, but that may be due to legal constraints. It could be that they are just as interested in home use as they are in use during work hours, but they don't say that.
Nearly all false-positives are the result of using liquid chromatography quick (low-cost) test. LC produces almost zero false-negatives, but is less reliable when it comes to false-positives. AFAIK, under federal procedures positive-testing urine is then sent for testing (gas chroma/Mass spectrometry) at a specialiized lab. GC/MS has a very low incidence of false-pos. If the tesing and paperwork is done correctly, false-positives are not of concern. The problem is that the paperwork is not always done right. A few years back, I had a LC urine test that showed positive for PCP, and the test adnimistrator said it was probably a false +, that my pee would be sent in for the GC/MS test, and not to worry. After doing some research, I found out that a med I was taking results in a metabolite similar to one from PCP and that GC/MS could differentiate between the two. OK, no biggie. A couple days later I got a call from the medical review officer for the test administrator the testing company (not the lab). He had been given paperwork showing that my + result for PCP ad been CONFIRMED by the GC/MS lab, when in fact it had never been sent there. The only reason he called was because PCP use is almost unheard of in my demographic/work area (DOE's Hanford Nuclear Site); if it had been any other drug, he wouldn't have called. He would have simply passd the positive report on to my employer. While talking to him, we figued out what happened. The person who tested me wrote "Confirm positive for PCP" in the section of the report that the GC/MS lab is supposed to use, and someone else then passed it to the MRO thinking it was a confirmed + report from an actual lab (it was later sent for GC/MS, and came back negative). Again, the MRO said that he only called because a + test for PCP was unusual, and that if it had been anything else, I'd have been SOL. Sure, it might have been a one in a million situation, but the above example is very real, and nearly resulted in big problems at work.
There is no appeal process. Once the GC/MS is performed and the MRO signs off, there is nothing that can be done. If there were, people would just clean up before the retest, claim their sample got mixed up with someone else's, etc.
Overall, I just don't see how random testing can ensure higher workplace safety, which is the only reason I've ever seen for that kind of testing.
thanks
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
I've never seen an employer drug test policy that mentions anything other than a desire to prevent non-sober employees in the workplace. None have mentioned drug use outside of work, but that may be due to legal constraints. It could be that they are just as interested in home use as they are in use during work hours, but they don't say that.
Nearly all false-positives are the result of using liquid chromatography quick (low-cost) test. LC produces almost zero false-negatives, but is less reliable when it comes to false-positives. AFAIK, under federal procedures positive-testing urine is then sent for testing (gas chroma/Mass spectrometry) at a specialiized lab. GC/MS has a very low incidence of false-pos. If the tesing and paperwork is done correctly, false-positives are not of concern. The problem is that the paperwork is not always done right. A few years back, I had a LC urine test that showed positive for PCP, and the test adnimistrator said it was probably a false +, that my pee would be sent in for the GC/MS test, and not to worry. After doing some research, I found out that a med I was taking results in a metabolite similar to one from PCP and that GC/MS could differentiate between the two. OK, no biggie. A couple days later I got a call from the medical review officer for the test administrator the testing company (not the lab). He had been given paperwork showing that my + result for PCP ad been CONFIRMED by the GC/MS lab, when in fact it had never been sent there. The only reason he called was because PCP use is almost unheard of in my demographic/work area (DOE's Hanford Nuclear Site); if it had been any other drug, he wouldn't have called. He would have simply passd the positive report on to my employer. While talking to him, we figued out what happened. The person who tested me wrote "Confirm positive for PCP" in the section of the report that the GC/MS lab is supposed to use, and someone else then passed it to the MRO thinking it was a confirmed + report from an actual lab (it was later sent for GC/MS, and came back negative). Again, the MRO said that he only called because a + test for PCP was unusual, and that if it had been anything else, I'd have been SOL. Sure, it might have been a one in a million situation, but the above example is very real, and nearly resulted in big problems at work.
There is no appeal process. Once the GC/MS is performed and the MRO signs off, there is nothing that can be done. If there were, people would just clean up before the retest, claim their sample got mixed up with someone else's, etc.
Overall, I just don't see how random testing can ensure higher workplace safety, which is the only reason I've ever seen for that kind of testing.
thanks
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteI always wonder what qualifies in people's minds as "welfare."
Being paid to do nothingQuoteAre tax breaks "welfare?"
A tax break means that of the dollars you work for the government takes a bit less away. Does not meet the definition I posted above.QuoteWhat about federally guaranteed student loans? Are they "welfare?"
Loans are not welfare as you pay it back an pay interest on the loan.QuoteWhat if part of a hospital bill was written off ten years ago? Was that welfare?
No. That is an uncollectable account. The persons credit rating will be affaected accordingly. You can sue but in most cases it is deemed to not be worth their whileQuoteDo monetary *perks* from the government only count as "welfare" if you're poor? If a upper-middle class person receives some benefits here and there....do those count as "welfare," or is there a different name for it because he makes enough money to send his children to college?
You would have to define the perk. If you refer to an old age pension, well then it is expected that the person is not going to be looking for work. If they use drugs they will die sooner and we can stop paying benefitsQuoteI think drug testing for welfare is just fine, as long as there is no discrimination between kinds of welfare.
I agree with that to an extent. I sometimes feel that the distinction between welfare bume (not everyone on welfare) and UI bums is ambiguous at best. That said, UI is temporary and you at least have to report in.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Did I imply that his comment did? I think not. I posted cites that showed a reverse trend from what Clinton did to what happened after Bush took office. But, you being in Canada, what concern is it of yours? It's not your tax dollars. Please explain.
You imply that welfare recipients are drug user. Your use of terms such as "stick it to the man" and "freedom, baby" are typically associated with hippies. I merely deduced this to indicated you are speaking of hiipies.
Got a mirror?
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites