States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Peejay]

Dud, you are presenting a straw man defense. I have shown that in unusual circumstances the average druggie would be powerless disguising their drug use. Extreme testing would be used only as a final resort. However, few tests would ever progress to these extremes. Better than 90% would be addressed by standard testing. The resulting 10% would normally be solved without the necessity of in depth screening.

As to a taxpayer revolt, you have to be kidding. These turd's in Washington just spent a trillion dollars with even reading the bill. Do you think the cost of drug testing for a minuscule number of druggies would even raise a peep?

The invasion of privacy issue is negated the same as implied consent for blood or breathalyzer testing is used with issuing a drivers license. i.e., If you want your check, sign here.
gb

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb

Probable cause, pal. Again, drivrers are not arbitrarily subjected to a breath test. First, there must be reasonable suspicion.

If you want to drug test welfare folks on probable cause, I'm all for that. But the fact is, if you have probable cause, you can use the police to arrest and charge them and their welfare goes away anyway.

As it stands right now, the only federal ruling on these test says THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I suspect that if any of these states do get their legislation passed, it will be shot down, just the same as the Michigan foray into drug testing.

 

[Care4all]

Dud, you are presenting a straw man defense. I have shown that in unusual circumstances the average druggie would be powerless disguising their drug use. Extreme testing would be used only as a final resort. However, few tests would ever progress to these extremes. Better than 90% would be addressed by standard testing. The resulting 10% would normally be solved without the necessity of in depth screening.

As to a taxpayer revolt, you have to be kidding. These turd's in Washington just spent a trillion dollars with even reading the bill. Do you think the cost of drug testing for a minuscule number of druggies would even raise a peep?

The invasion of privacy issue is negated the same as implied consent for blood or breathalyzer testing is used with issuing a drivers license. i.e., If you want your check, sign here.
gb

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb

i'm not a pal, i'm a gal

regardless, you, as an innocent person of any violation are not subject to take a breathalyzer test, period. They don't force every driver to take one in order to drive....so your example doesn't fit an example of what the government can make you do in order to drive and it would be an invasion of privacy if they required ALL to take the breathalyzer test before being allowed to drive, and that's why the circumstances are limited to a violation or accident, not a mass witch hunt... again, imo.


Care

 

[Peejay]

And here it is, just this week. The Missouri bill cites reasonable cause for drug testing.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. | The Missouri House has given initial approval to legislation requiring drug tests for some welfare recipients.

The bill would direct the Department of Social Services to set up a drug-testing program for work-eligible welfare applicants or recipients. It would apply only to those for whom there is “reasonable cause” to believe they are using illegal drugs.

 

[aka520]

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb

Probable cause, pal. Again, drivrers are not arbitrarily subjected to a breath test. First, there must be reasonable suspicion.

If you want to drug test welfare folks on probable cause, I'm all for that. But the fact is, if you have probable cause, you can use the police to arrest and charge them and their welfare goes away anyway.

As it stands right now, the only federal ruling on these test says THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I suspect that if any of these states do get their legislation passed, it will be shot down, just the same as the Michigan foray into drug testing.

Your starting to stray pal. I only used the implied consent law to illustrate when one signs up for benefit they also agree to summary drug testing. The constitutionality is not for you or me to rule.
gb

 

[Peejay]

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb

Probable cause, pal. Again, drivrers are not arbitrarily subjected to a breath test. First, there must be reasonable suspicion.

If you want to drug test welfare folks on probable cause, I'm all for that. But the fact is, if you have probable cause, you can use the police to arrest and charge them and their welfare goes away anyway.

As it stands right now, the only federal ruling on these test says THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I suspect that if any of these states do get their legislation passed, it will be shot down, just the same as the Michigan foray into drug testing.

Your starting to stray pal. I only used the implied consent law to illustrate when one signs up for benefit they also agree to summary drug testing. The constitutionality is not for you or me to rule.
gb

You're wrong pal. Maybe you didn't read carefully. There has been a federal ruling on drug testing welfare recipients. There is no implied consent. Matter of fact, that argument was vigorously made to the court. THE TEST HAVE BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

All of these states, and there are more jumping on this, know that there has been a ruling and they know that their legislation will be tested again. Until another court overturns, the test are unconstitutional. Don't blame me. I'm merely reporting the facts.

 

[aka520]

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb

i'm not a pal, i'm a gal

regardless, you, as an innocent person of any violation are not subject to take a breathalyzer test, period. They don't force every driver to take one in order to drive....so your example doesn't fit an example of what the government can make you do in order to drive and it would be an invasion of privacy if they required ALL to take the breathalyzer test before being allowed to drive, and that's why the circumstances are limited to a violation or accident, not a mass witch hunt... again, imo.


Care

Come on, give me a break. A gal can be a pal same as a dude. I have already answered I used the implied concent rule only to illustrate the same rule could be applied to require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. When you sign up to receive benifits you also agree by implied consent to whatever rules apply. If drug testing is a rule for everyone and you agree, then testing does apply. If you balk at testing, benefits can and should be witheld.
gb

 

[Peejay]

A Michigan law that requires drug testing for all parents receiving or applying for welfare benefits has been ruled unconstitutional by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati.

Federal appeals court bars welfare testing. (Privacy Rights). | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Here it is so you can read someone else's words. Drug testing welfare reipients has been ruled unconstitutional by the only federal courts having heard such cases. I fully expect that with all these states moving on the issue now, there will be a hold put on any testing that passes in to law and the SCOTUS will end up hearing this.

It will be deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS also. You heard it here first.

 

[Peejay]

Come on, give me a break. A gal can be a pal same as a dude. I have already answered I used the implied concent rule only to illustrate the same rule could be applied to require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. When you sign up to receive benifits you also agree by implied consent to whatever rules apply. If drug testing is a rule for everyone and you agree, then testing does apply. If you balk at testing, benefits can and should be witheld.
gb

So far, implied consent can not be used. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it anymore truthful. The court says NO. It's unconstitutional. Come on back when you have something besides hot air to offer.

 

[Care4all]

The Klein Law Group, P.C.
New York, NY

New York Workers' Compensation Attorneys in Ridgewood & New York, NY

Fighting for Employment law rights since 1987.

Monitoring Employees' Off-Duty Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should you keep track of what your employees do when they're not on the job?

Today, employers have the technological means, and occasionally the inclination, to find out what workers are doing on their own time. However, your right to monitor your employees' conduct off the job -- and make decisions based on that conduct -- is limited. If your investigation or questions invade an employee's right to privacy, you might end up in court.

Privacy Law

Employees of government and public entities have a constitutional right to privacy that protects them from most employer monitoring of, or even inquiring about, their off-the-job conduct. For public employers, then, monitoring is largely off-limits.

In the private sector, a number of laws prohibit employers from intruding into their employees' lives outside of work. Some state constitutions specifically provide for a right to privacy, which prevents private employers from looking into their employees' off-duty activity. Some states, including California, have laws prohibiting employers from taking any job-related action against a worker based on that worker's lawful conduct off the job.

Even in those states that don't provide private workers with a constitutional or statutory right to privacy, it is generally illegal for an employer to intrude unreasonably into the "seclusion" of an employee. This means that physical areas in which an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy are off-limits to employers, unless there is a very good reason to intrude. And an employer is never allowed to physically enter an employee's home without consent (even when searching for allegedly stolen property belonging to the employer).

The same balancing approach often applies to private information. Generally speaking, an employer may not inquire about or otherwise obtain facts about employees' private lives. For example, an employer may not ask an employee about her sex life with her husband.

Courts and legislatures have created some specific rules for certain types of private, off-duty activities.

Union Activity

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it is illegal for an employer to monitor or conduct any surveillance of employee union activities, including off-the-job meetings or gatherings. This rule also applies to any concerted activity (that is, activity undertaken by workers acting together, rather than individually) even if no union is involved, as long as employees are discussing their work conditions or terms of employment. An employer who sends a supervisor to eavesdrop on such meetings, or plants a spy among employees engaged in such conduct, violates the NLRA.

Drug Testing

Because drug testing has the potential to reveal an employee's use of drugs outside of work hours, it has been the subject of much privacy litigation. In general, drug testing is permitted in the job application context, where employees are performing safety or security-sensitive work, or when an employee has given an employer some reason to believe that he or she is impaired by drugs at work.

Political and Religious Activities and Beliefs

An employee's off-the-job political and religious activities are off-limits to his or her employer. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious or political affiliation. However, an employee who brings politics or religion to work, by proselytizing or attempting to convert others, for example, may be subject to discipline by the employer.

Moonlighting

Generally speaking, working more than one job is lawful. However, an employer has the right to limit after-hours work that is in conflict with the employer's own business. For instance, going to work for the competition could provide grounds for discipline or discharge.

Marital Status

Many states make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of marital status. Therefore, employers may not keep track of whether their employees are single, married, or divorced, except as may be necessary for providing certain benefits such as health insurance. However, tricky issues can arise when, for example, one spouse applies for a position in which he or she would supervise the other, or an applicant's spouse works for the hiring company's major competitor. To find out whether your state prohibits marital status discrimination, and how its law might apply to situations like these, contact your state fair employment practices agency.

Illegal Activities

May an employer take action against an employee who has been arrested for driving under the influence or convicted of a crime? If an employer learns that a worker has engaged in illegal conduct off duty, can the employer ask the worker about it? In many states, the answer to these questions is "no," unless the off-duty illegality has some concrete impact on the employee's work or the employer's business interests. An employer would be entitled to look into the drunk driving arrest or conviction of a bus driver or the embezzlement conviction of a bank employee, for example.

Copyright 2006 Nolo

 

[Ravi]

And here it is, just this week. The Missouri bill cites reasonable cause for drug testing.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. | The Missouri House has given initial approval to legislation requiring drug tests for some welfare recipients.

The bill would direct the Department of Social Services to set up a drug-testing program for work-eligible welfare applicants or recipients. It would apply only to those for whom there is “reasonable cause” to believe they are using illegal drugs.

In other words, a new law for something that is already illegal. How retarded.

 

[AllieBaba]

Utter, partisan horseshit.

Welfare hasn't been touched.

the interesting thing about how blinded you are by your partisanship, is that on one hand, we are discussing a fairly large movement by states to drug test, in an effort to reduce welfare claims.

In the face of this, you produce some opinion that states somehow are moving away from welfafare reform and actually looking at increasing roles.

You look pretty stupid at this point.

Bullshit. I'm a caseworker. I can tell you right now ERDC is on the chopping block..that's child care assistance for working families, and they are looking at removing extended incentive benefits for those who do get work, who currently can still receive a limited amount of foodstamps for a period of time after they go to work.

Additionally, ALL the jobs programs are being hacked to bits.

So tell me again how stupid I look, asshole.

 

[aka520]

Come on, give me a break. A gal can be a pal same as a dude. I have already answered I used the implied concent rule only to illustrate the same rule could be applied to require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. When you sign up to receive benifits you also agree by implied consent to whatever rules apply. If drug testing is a rule for everyone and you agree, then testing does apply. If you balk at testing, benefits can and should be witheld.
gb

So far, implied consent can not be used. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it anymore truthful. The court says NO. It's unconstitutional. Come on back when you have something besides hot air to offer.

Sorry PJ, but your personal opinion does not speak for the US Supreme Court. Just because a left wing stacked appeals court in Cincinnati rules it is unconstitutional, is no assurance the US Supreme Court will rule the same way. Until the court rules you are the windbag full of hot air.
gb

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, and in addition, not only are welfare recipients increasing EXPONENTIALLY as more people lose their jobs, but we are in hiring freezes, having forced furloughs for managers, and otherwise decreasing the numbers of people available to provide assistance to more people.

Now carry on, nitwit.

 

[Peejay]

Come on, give me a break. A gal can be a pal same as a dude. I have already answered I used the implied concent rule only to illustrate the same rule could be applied to require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. When you sign up to receive benifits you also agree by implied consent to whatever rules apply. If drug testing is a rule for everyone and you agree, then testing does apply. If you balk at testing, benefits can and should be witheld.
gb

So far, implied consent can not be used. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it anymore truthful. The court says NO. It's unconstitutional. Come on back when you have something besides hot air to offer.

Sorry PJ, but your personal opinion does not speak for the US Supreme Court. Just because a left wing stacked appeals court in Cincinnati rules it is unconstitutional, is no assurance the US Supreme Court will rule the same way. Until the court rules you are the windbag full of hot air.
gb

Un huh.....It's been ruled unconstitutional. Michigan was ordered to stop drug testing.

 

[Peejay]

Utter, partisan horseshit.

Welfare hasn't been touched.

the interesting thing about how blinded you are by your partisanship, is that on one hand, we are discussing a fairly large movement by states to drug test, in an effort to reduce welfare claims.

In the face of this, you produce some opinion that states somehow are moving away from welfafare reform and actually looking at increasing roles.

You look pretty stupid at this point.

Bullshit. I'm a caseworker. I can tell you right now ERDC is on the chopping block..that's child care assistance for working families, and they are looking at removing extended incentive benefits for those who do get work, who currently can still receive a limited amount of foodstamps for a period of time after they go to work.

Additionally, ALL the jobs programs are being hacked to bits.

So tell me again how stupid I look, asshole.

Ok. You look stupid. Here is what you posted and bolded:

All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs.

You post that welfare programs will be expanded because of the stimulus bill and now you come back and tell us that programs are on the chopping block.

Yeah....you look like a stupid partisan.

 

[aka520]

So far, implied consent can not be used. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it anymore truthful. The court says NO. It's unconstitutional. Come on back when you have something besides hot air to offer.

Sorry PJ, but your personal opinion does not speak for the US Supreme Court. Just because a left wing stacked appeals court in Cincinnati rules it is unconstitutional, is no assurance the US Supreme Court will rule the same way. Until the court rules you are the windbag full of hot air.
gb

Un huh.....It's been ruled unconstitutional. Michigan was ordered to stop drug testing.

As I posted earlier PJ, until you can prove to me the SCOUS calls you regularly, asking for your opinion, you remain just another windbag full of hot air. Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOUS rules it's unconstitutional. Got that pal. I suggest you wish in one hand and crap in the other. Wanna bet which one fill's first?
gb

 

[Peejay]

Sorry PJ, but your personal opinion does not speak for the US Supreme Court. Just because a left wing stacked appeals court in Cincinnati rules it is unconstitutional, is no assurance the US Supreme Court will rule the same way. Until the court rules you are the windbag full of hot air.
gb

Un huh.....It's been ruled unconstitutional. Michigan was ordered to stop drug testing.

As I posted earlier PJ, until you can prove to me the SCOUS calls you regularly, asking for your opinion, you remain just another windbag full of hot air. Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOUS rules it's unconstitutional. Got that pal. I suggest you wish in one hand and crap in the other. Wanna bet which one fill's first?
gb

Sure thing. And when you can read that the 6th circuit ruled this unconstitutional, I'll be sure to note that you completed your phonics course.

And what do you know.....

West Virginia Drug testing bill dies in the House.

Questions about its cost and constitutionality left it stranded in the House Judiciary Committee.

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Dies in W.Va. House

Wow. We must be telepathic. Cost and constitutionality submarined this turd.

 

[Shogun]

Hey man.. don't sweat Peejay's input on this. His opinion is about as deep as a dancing monkey's insight on nuclear physics. I was busy telling him the same shit 5 pages ago.

 

[Peejay]

Hey man.. don't sweat Peejay's input on this. His opinion is about as deep as a dancing monkey's insight on nuclear physics. I was busy telling him the same shit 5 pages ago.

Not my input. I'm just reporting the facts. The first state to try this since Michigan decided that cost and the Constitution were in the way. Seems like there have been some opinions here of the same conclusion.

 

[aka520]

Un huh.....It's been ruled unconstitutional. Michigan was ordered to stop drug testing.

As I posted earlier PJ, until you can prove to me the SCOUS calls you regularly, asking for your opinion, you remain just another windbag full of hot air. Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOUS rules it's unconstitutional. Got that pal. I suggest you wish in one hand and crap in the other. Wanna bet which one fill's first?
gb

Sure thing. And when you can read that the 6th circuit ruled this unconstitutional, I'll be sure to note that you completed your phonics course.

And what do you know.....

West Virginia Drug testing bill dies in the House.

Questions about its cost and constitutionality left it stranded in the House Judiciary Committee.

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Dies in W.Va. House

Wow. We must be telepathic. Cost and constitutionality submarined this turd.

Come on PJ, you are getting redundantly boring. The lower court ruling is irrelevant. This case is en route to the SCOUS. When they have ruled we will know. Just because you keep depositing the same old crap, doesn't make it so. See there, one of your hands is already filling. Guess which one? If you are waiting for thatr phone call, I wouldn't hold my breath.
gb