Guilty of being poor

It is already required (4.00 / 1)

Apparently, the Senator has not read the law for receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) - which is what "welfare" or "AFDC" used to be.

From the Administration for Children & Families Office of Public Affairs:
"With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
To count toward a State's work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six.  Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.

What counts as Work Activities?

"unsubsidized or subsidized employment
work experience
on-the-job training
job search and job readiness assistance
community service
vocational educational training
job skills training related to work
education directly related to employment
satisfactory secondary school attendance
providing child care services to individuals who are participating in community service.

---

by: Kidspeak @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 21:38:10 PM UTC

Being tested for drugs is not on the list! (4.00 / 1)

Perhaps he means that everything except community service should be eliminated, and being drug-tested added.

---

by: Kidspeak @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 21:40:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Drug Testing at Private Companies is DIFFERENT than for Public Assistance Applicants (4.00 / 3)

This is something I thought about a couple weeks ago, wrote this and then moved on to something else.

"Why not require drug testing for anyone applying for public assistance? I had to get tested before my company would hire me -- why should people on welfare get a pass? It's MY tax dollars, and I don't want any of it to go to drug users." ~ Typical Republican and/or Tea Partier argument

Because so many people simply haven't thought this through, and think that the above argument is a "winner" in the policy debate regarding mandatory drug testing for anyone seeking public aid (positive result = denial of benefits), here's a quick rundown of WHY the argument fails.

Private Companies and Job Applicants Have Choices

It may not seem like it when people use terms like "I had to..." or "They made me..." to describe how they peed in a cup before landing their current job, but it is true. Private companies are given broad leeway in hiring, depending on whether the employees are represented (i.e. by a union) and such things as anti-discrimination laws. They can't ask an applicant his or her age, marital status, religious affililiation, etc. A company CAN ask for signed consent from the applicant to run a credit check, criminal background check, driving records check -- and to require the applicant get tested to see if they've used illegal drugs recently.

If the applicant doesn't consent, the hiring process most likely ends right there. If he/she does, and the drug test comes back positive, then the company can choose to use that as a pretext to not hire that person (same goes for the other investigations a private company can ASK an applicant to authorize).

A private company cannot compel an applicant to consent; walking away and not agreeing to the invasions of privacy is an option. It's not simply a matter of the applicant fearing a positive test; a company requiring such levels of scrutiny -- demonstrating a possible lack of trust from the git-go -- wouldn't be a good fit for many people. An ex-convict, for example, probably wouldn't get a fair chance at a firm that relies on criminal background checks to screen applicants, regardless of the drug test's outcome (if it even gets that far).

But say the application does go that far. The only negative outcome of a positive drug test is that the application might be rejected. Of course, nothing PREVENTS the company from ignoring its internal drug policy and hiring that applicant anyway -- it might be stupid and expose the company to liability, but private companies CAN do it.

Once hired, companies can of course compel employees to take additional drug tests, and they can fire employees who fail, or take steps short of termination. An employee still has the option of quitting rather than submit to a mandatory test. Quitting might imperil one's ability to collect unemployment; and a company that ignores a positive drug test might be found liable should something happen. But those consequences are based on choices.

Government Agencies and Public Aid Applicants Have No Choices

Contrast that with a person seeking aid from the government -- cash assistance, "food stamps," help with utility payments, subsidized housing, or even unemployment benefits (proposed by House Republicans, who think an insurance program that employees pay into while they're working is the moral equivalent of "welfare").

There's only one place the aid applicant can go for such help; it might be different agencies, and some of it comes from a federal program as opposed to the state, but it's still "government." Besides, those demanding mandatory drug testing aren't making such fine distinctions, so why should I?

If a law is passed that REQUIRES, as a condtition of receiving government assistance, a person to submit to and pass a drug test, then all government agencies are bound by it. Unless written into the law, there are no options -- an applicant who fails the test, or chooses to not be tested, gets no benefits. Short of leaving the state, there is no "other government" down the street where the applicant can try again.

There's also the fact that government, unlike the private sector, has the power to arrest, indict, try, convict, sentence and incarcerate its citizens. Not only that, but it's the very same government that passed other laws declaring certain substances to be "illegal" in the first place, as well as different laws creating and regulating public assistance programs.

By contrast, a private company's policies do not carry the force of law. They can't arrest you for using illegal drugs (unless it's on company grounds or while you're on the job, and even then their jurisdiction is limited to company grounds), or refer your positive drug test to the police or local prosecutor for criminal charges.

But a company policy CAN apply to alcohol or tobacco, which are legal substances for adults to use or even abuse. Government can ban smoking in the workplace, or driving under the influence of alcohol; a private company can declare smoking and drinking to be against company policy for its employees -- even at home! - mandate testing for alcohol and tobacco use, and punish anyone who fails (within the constraints of the choices noted above).

Opinions differ on whether a government department with a drug testing mandate for its customers should or must share the results with other agencies. Can student financial aid be denied even if the education department does NOT mandate drug testing for all students? Can a positive drug test used to deny assistance also be used in court -- to remove parental rights, revoke probation (even if the person passed court-ordered drug tests not related to public assistance), or even as prima facie evidence to indict on a charge of drug possession or drug use? Could drug test results find their to civil cases, to be used by one spouse against the other in a divorce, or by the defense in a lawsuit unrelated to the plaintiff's application for benefits?

What about private companies that want access to the government's drug testing records? Insurance companies would love having another possible way to deny a claim, or defend itself in a lawsuit. The same companies that mandate drug testing for job applicants and employees would consider government-mandated drug tests as just another data point to be used in their screening process. Pass the company's drug test, don't get the job anyway because you came up positive one time when applying for home heating assistance five years ago. Does that seem fair?

Worst-case Scenario: After three years on the job, "Bev" is laid off, and she files for unemployment benefits (a program she paid into while she was working). Because her job was low-paying, she receives food assistance and qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit when she files her federal and state returns. Bev has never been arrested or convicted of any crime, and has never failed a drug test in the past. But this time, there's a drug test requirement for unemployment, and it comes up positive. Not only is Bev's application denied, but she loses the food stamps and EITC, faces indictment on a misdemeanor drug charge, and has to prove to family court that she's still a fit parent. Later, that same failed drug test -- one record in a database made available to private companies for a fee -- costs Bev job opportunities, lowers her credit score and results in a denial of health insurance coverage.

IS THAT WHAT REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT?

---

by: helzapoppn @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 22:02:59 PM UTC

Hune (0.00 / 0)

People of normal intelligence  recognize Hune's idiotic comments for just what they are, the uninformed,  ignorant rantings of a politician who is apparently of less than normal intelligence. "Working out" assistance received under the old Direct Relief program administered by the counties is a well known fact. The state usually looked down its nose at the counties that used this approach but when dummies like Hune started clamoring for work rules the Congress and states all climbed on the bandwagon to require assistance be worked out. However, they couldn't use that term and had to invent new ones like job retraining, work participation, etc. In other words, same program as that run by the counties years ago but with a different name.

Now, just as soon as Hune pees in the bottle for drug testing we'll be able to determine if his rantings are the result breathing second-hand Mary Jane smoke in one of the local bistros frequented by the pols in Lansing or we'll be able to draw different conclusions as to his mental status.  

---

by: cueball @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 17:04:38 PM UTC

Well if the companies want them drug tested, (0.00 / 0)

let them do it and pay for it when they hire them.   Why should my tax dollars be used to drug test poor people for low wage companies?  

This legislation died just as soon as it was modified to include the legislators.   No surprise there.

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 21:39:19 PM UTC