States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Care4all]

most folks bringing home a paycheck get drug tested, why not people getting paychecks from we the people???

huh? most people bringing home pay checks ARE NOT drug tested.

I've never held a job, nor has my husband where drug testing was required, nor has anyone I've known been required to drug test.

According to the news, there are 40,000,000 MILLION marijuana smokers in the usa that for the most part, are holding jobs.

Let alone others that do drugs occaisionally of other sorts....it is working America who can afford them, for the most part, that does illegal drugs....and alot are prescription drugs as well....like anna nicole smith and Rush Limbaugh, congressman rockefellar etc....all "working people".

Care

Companies exist that don't require a drug test as a condition of employment? Where are these companies?

I listed just the ones i knew of personally....80% of america is employed by small businesses who more than likely can not afford to drug test also.

The ones i listed were all big corporations in the private sector, who did not drug test?

So i really do not know where you all are getting your info from?

Care

 

[WillowTree]

huh? most people bringing home pay checks ARE NOT drug tested.

I've never held a job, nor has my husband where drug testing was required, nor has anyone I've known been required to drug test.

According to the news, there are 40,000,000 MILLION marijuana smokers in the usa that for the most part, are holding jobs.

Let alone others that do drugs occaisionally of other sorts....it is working America who can afford them, for the most part, that does illegal drugs....and alot are prescription drugs as well....like anna nicole smith and Rush Limbaugh, congressman rockefellar etc....all "working people".

Care

Companies exist that don't require a drug test as a condition of employment? Where are these companies?

I listed just the ones i knew of personally....80% of america is employed by small businesses who more than likely can not afford to drug test also.

The ones i listed were all big corporations in the private sector, who did not drug test?

So i really do not know where you all are getting your info from?

Care

so no one that has ever employed you or others that you know of participated in the workman's compensation program?

 

[Care4all]

Companies exist that don't require a drug test as a condition of employment? Where are these companies?

I listed just the ones i knew of personally....80% of america is employed by small businesses who more than likely can not afford to drug test also.

The ones i listed were all big corporations in the private sector, who did not drug test?

So i really do not know where you all are getting your info from?

Care

so no one that has ever employed you or others that you know of participated in the workman's compensation program?

Every job i held, including all of my husband's jobs as well, participated in workman's comp and have never required a drug test.

NEVER! Had to drug test.

so the workman's comp thingy that you all are claiming a drug test is necessary is just BUNK, to put it politely as i can , willow.

My husband is working for a large corporation now, who has workman's comp coverage does NOT have to drug test to be employed or to participate.

Care

 

[WillowTree]

I listed just the ones i knew of personally....80% of america is employed by small businesses who more than likely can not afford to drug test also.

The ones i listed were all big corporations in the private sector, who did not drug test?

So i really do not know where you all are getting your info from?

Care

so no one that has ever employed you or others that you know of participated in the workman's compensation program?

Every job i held, including all of my husband's jobs as well, participated in workman's comp and have never required a drug test.

NEVER! Had to drug test.

so the workman's comp thingy that you all are claiming a drug test is necessary is just BUNK, to put it politely as i can , willow.

My husband is working for a large corporation now, who has workman's comp coverage does NOT have to drug test to be employed or to participate.

Care

don't strain at being polite,, it's not necessary.. I've never had a job that participated in the worker's comp program that did not require a drug test. and that the truth of the matter. .

 

[Ravi]

Testing for drugs and the Workers Comp Insurance company - Google Search




googles is yall's friend..

Wow, in Florida you save 5% on your Worker's Comp premium if you drug test. Big deal.

 

[Shogun]

perhaps it's not a bid eal to you and your 5 illegal mexican employees but to a company that has, literally, hundreds of thousands of employees... And, In this case the food stamp program... yes, 5% is significant.

Hell, if the federal interest rate fluxuates around that number and influences bank decisions to offer loans then chances are it's a wee bit more significant than your comprehension of I9 forms.

 

[Ravi]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

 

[Shogun]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

but it IS a cost to do business. Well, for those of us who follow employment laws, I guess.

 

[WillowTree]

lame lame lame lmae

 

[Ravi]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

but it IS a cost to do business. Well, for those of us who follow employment laws, I guess.

Do you have a point? Oh, of course not. Saving 5% on your Worker's Comp is more than likely not going to pay for the drug testing program.

Willow seemed to be implying that Worker's Comp made drug testing mandatory. It does not.

 

[Shogun]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

but it IS a cost to do business. Well, for those of us who follow employment laws, I guess.

Do you have a point? Oh, of course not. Saving 5% on your Worker's Comp is more than likely not going to pay for the drug testing program.

Willow seemed to be implying that Worker's Comp made drug testing mandatory. It does not.

again, it may not for you and your 5 illegal mexican employees but for the rest of us, well, I'm afraid your opinion of the necessity of drug tests and work comp savings means as little to us and a valid social security number does to you.

 

[Ravi]

but it IS a cost to do business. Well, for those of us who follow employment laws, I guess.

Do you have a point? Oh, of course not. Saving 5% on your Worker's Comp is more than likely not going to pay for the drug testing program.

Willow seemed to be implying that Worker's Comp made drug testing mandatory. It does not.

again, it may not for you and your 5 illegal mexican employees but for the rest of us, well, I'm afraid your opinion of the necessity of drug tests and work comp savings means as little to us and a valid social security number does to you.

Don't make me make a fool out of you again, soggy...it gets boring. Go right ahead and post the cost savings of 5% off of worker's comp vs. an employee drug testing program.

 

[aka520]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

What a lame statement. Workmen's Comp is a State law in think in every State. The rate depends on what type of work people are performing. If you have an office full of people the rate is relatively small. However, if you have field personel working around dangerous equipment the rate is much higher. It can go as high as 10% to 15% of gross payroll. If you are a small business with 30 or so people in the field, you are talking about a pretty good piece of change. Most construction and all government projects also require mandatory drug testing. It saves lives.
gb

 

[Shogun]

Do you have a point? Oh, of course not. Saving 5% on your Worker's Comp is more than likely not going to pay for the drug testing program.

Willow seemed to be implying that Worker's Comp made drug testing mandatory. It does not.

again, it may not for you and your 5 illegal mexican employees but for the rest of us, well, I'm afraid your opinion of the necessity of drug tests and work comp savings means as little to us and a valid social security number does to you.

Don't make me make a fool out of you again, soggy...it gets boring. Go right ahead and post the cost savings of 5% off of worker's comp vs. an employee drug testing program.

Ravi, the day you make a fool out of me is the day your bathroom scale stops quaking in fear when you reach for anything under the sink. If you can't fathom how saving 5% on overhead cost is worth chasing then I guess we know why you stick with illegal mexicans for your labor pool

 

[Shogun]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

What a lame statement. Workmen's Comp is a State law in think in every State. The rate depends on what type of work people are performing. If you have an office full of people the rate is relatively small. However, if you have field personel working around dangerous equipment the rate is much higher. It can go as high as 10% to 15% of gross payroll. If you are a small business with 30 or so people in the field, you are talking about a pretty good piece of change. Most construction and all government projects also require mandatory drug testing. It saves lives.
gb

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ravi doesn't really know much about the shit she comments on. If you want a good laugh ask her about I9 employment requirements.

 

[Ravi]

I knew you couldn't do it soggy.

Unemployment averages about 1.25% of salary. A $40,000 employee would cost around $500 in unemployment insurance per year. A 5% savings on that $500 would be a whopping $25...the average cost of a pre-employment drug test and subsequent random testings is $44 each time. The 5% savings doesn't even pay for one drug test.

And you want us to believe you work in HR...your poor employer.

 

[Shogun]

Ravi, there are so many layers that you just missed that I'm going to go ahead and sit back while aka520 bats you around like a little mouse. Seriously, ravir. seriously.

 

[Ravi]

I don't blame you, soggy...poor pathetic dweeb.

 

[Shogun]

You shouldn't blame me, fat girl... It's humor like this that keeps us all laughing at you and give you that "jolly" appearance.

 

[aka520]

I knew you couldn't do it soggy.

Unemployment averages about 1.25% of salary. A $40,000 employee would cost around $500 in unemployment insurance per year. A 5% savings on that $500 would be a whopping $25...the average cost of a pre-employment drug test and subsequent random testings is $44 each time. The 5% savings doesn't even pay for one drug test.

And you want us to believe you work in HR...your poor employer.

I am not trying to beat you up Ravi, or anything of the sort. However, it appears you are either misinformed or uninformed about this issue. Exactly what does unemployment insurance have to do with Workmen's Comp? The rate is set by the State for unemployment insurance (suta) and is calculated by the number of claims you had in the previous year. It affords some income if a person is laid off work or becomes unemployed for reasons other than simply quitting. Workmen's Comp is medical insurance among other things if you are hurt on the job. However, the two are entirely separate entities. In both instances the employer bears 100% of the cost.

With 30 or so field personel, Workmen's Comp can run anywhere from 100 to 120 K a year or more. Granted, a 5% discount from WC will not entirely off set the cost of monthly drug testing. However, if you know drug testing is required you build the cost into your bid or pricing structure, whichever the case. Besides, as I posted. It can save lives.
gb