Urine Test

Dirtie_Frank

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck...

I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I
have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had
to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Abookamongstthemany

No one should have to take or pass a urine test.

vedderfan10

What a fucked up land in which you live. Urine test...pffft! Seems to me that violates your basic human rights...but I'm Canadian, so I'm slow....

chopitdown

i took a urine test...passed it...with a 65.

it's an interesting thing. Part of me agrees that if you're getting money or assitance from the gov't they should make certain stipulations like don't spend the money on anything illegal. And if you do, you'll lose the assistance, just like a person with a job would lose their job...see athletes or factory workers or physicians etc... It would never pass though.

Ms. Haiku

I'm totally against urine tests for jobs. During a job interview I was asked if I would agree to a urine test because the company I would interview for requires them, and I said no. The interviewer bid me good day right then and there, and I don't regret it one bit.

My blood is so clean the test results page would be like a new polished floor, but the idea still disgusts me.

It seems though, that the issue in the first message isn't the urine test.

decides2dream

Ms. Haiku wrote:

It seems though, that the issue in the first message isn't the urine test.

agreed.



and, i'd have to agree with the basic premise of the first post.


i was a teacher, yep....a TEACHER...for 10 years, never drug-tested. yet, for a real run-of-the-mill job, i had to pass a urine test. i too, in theory.....am against the basic premise of it, but honestly...i didn't care, wanted the job, liked the company...submitted and passed. now i am going to work for a huge international fortune 500 company...and no drug tests. so yea, go figure.

vedderfan10

I don't know why you don't all rise up and have a revolt over this.

decides2dream

Vedderfan10 wrote:

I don't know why you don't all rise up and have a revolt over this.

perhaps b/c no one is 'forced' to apply, or accept, jobs that require drug tests. there are plenty of jobs that don't require it, so basically, it's a choice.

moeaholic

funny, my previous job was inspecting circuit boards that went into air conditioners. before i got hired, i had to pass a urine test. while working there, they "randomly" chose people each week to go in for a urine test.

the job i'm at now, i work on circuit boards that end up in satellites, go into missles, get put into boxes that are used as sonar and radar......and the only time i'd be required to take a urine test is if i hurt myself on the job.

moeaholic

decides2dream wrote:

agreed.



and, i'd have to agree with the basic premise of the first post.


i was a teacher, yep....a TEACHER...for 10 years, never drug-tested. yet, for a real run-of-the-mill job, i had to pass a urine test. i too, in theory.....am against the basic premise of it, but honestly...i didn't care, wanted the job, liked the company...submitted and passed. now i am going to work for a huge international fortune 500 company...and no drug tests. so yea, go figure.

lol, same thing here. i already posted about my current and former jobs, but one summer between college semesters i applied for a job at a convenience store/gas station and had to pass a urine test to get that job.

very odd.

dontloseyourheat

A urine test is just a way to screen out those who are too stupid to pass.

While ineffective and a waste of time, you can't blame employers for giving the tests. They want the best people to run their company and many believe that drugs take away from one's abilites to do their job.

moeaholic

dontloseyourheat wrote:

A urine test is just a way to screen out those who are too stupid to pass.

While ineffective and a waste of time, you can't blame employers for giving the tests. They want the best people to run their company and many believe that drugs take away from one's abilites to do their job.

here's a question, not just for you but anyone that would know the answer: is it true that if you put liquid soap on your finger and then piss into the cup and put said finger into the stream that the results will come up negative?

hippiemom

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No one should have to take or pass a urine test.

I agree. My work history and my references will tell you all you need to know about what type of employee I am. It's insulting to be asked to prove that you're not a drug addict. I never have and never will work for anyone who asked me to.

vedderfan10

hippiemom wrote:

I agree. My work history and my references will tell you all you need to know about what type of employee I am. It's insulting to be asked to prove that you're not a drug addict. I never have and never will work for anyone who asked me to.

Yay, Hippiemom!!!

Only your doctor should be asking for a urine sample. An employer? None of their business what meds you're taking or if you have a bladder infection! I still can't get over how many people accept this violation of their human rights...wow....

Dirtie_Frank

i posted this to see what everyones reaction would be. I was past this on myspace. I agree that no one should be subjected to a urine test but then again like someone said that no one said to apply for that job, However Ido believe that people that are receiving gvmnt assistance should be subject to certain restrictions on what they can buy, but hey why not work harder people on welfare are depending on it.

hailhailkc

Vedderfan10 wrote:

Yay, Hippiemom!!!

Only your doctor should be asking for a urine sample. An employer? None of their business what meds you're taking or if you have a bladder infection! I still can't get over how many people accept this violation of their human rights...wow....

Pissing in a cup is a human rights violation? I have no problem with a urine test. It might not make a lot of sense for someone who sits behind a desk, but what about someone who drives a truck or operates construction equipment all day?

Dirtie_Frank

Vedderfan10 wrote:

Yay, Hippiemom!!!

Only your doctor should be asking for a urine sample. An employer? None of their business what meds you're taking or if you have a bladder infection! I still can't get over how many people accept this violation of their human rights...wow....

so you are saying doctors, pilates, truck drivers, etc... should be allowed to get high on heroine or cocaine and perform their jobs without regards to the other people that this might effect?

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

so you are saying doctors, pilates, truck drivers, etc... should be allowed to get high on heroine or cocaine and perform their jobs without regards to the other people that this might effect?

I'd be a lot more comfortable with a computerized test of alertness and reflexes than I would with a urine test. Something that takes a minute or two but has to be done every day before you can drive, fly, whatever.

Who would you rather have flying your plane, someone who smoked a joint last Thursday or someone who got shit-faced drunk last night, or someone who is coming in to work on three hours sleep? A urine test will catch one, but not the more dangerous two.

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

I'd be a lot more comfortable with a computerized test of alertness and reflexes than I would with a urine test. Something that takes a minute or two but has to be done every day before you can drive, fly, whatever.

Who would you rather have flying your plane, someone who smoked a joint last Thursday or someone who got shit-faced drunk last night, or someone who is coming in to work on three hours sleep? A urine test will catch one, but not the more dangerous two.

did you see me mention pot

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

did you see me mention pot

Ok, substitute "a few lines" for "a joint." Same thing.

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

Ok, substitute "a few lines" for "a joint." Same thing.

coke and pot are not and should not be in the same category

norm

do these urine tests test for alcohol?.....or is it ok to be drunk on the job?

Smellyman2

Back to the original post.

If people are using government handouts to buy dope then I agree they should take a urine test. We shouldn't be supporting their drug habit.

Who wouldn't want free pot money?

El_Kabong

i'm a regular smoker and i've never failed a urine test...

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

coke and pot are not and should not be in the same category

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

Dirtie_Frank

The substance does not matter the question is should someone who receives state assistance be scrutinized (spelling?) to a "substance" test as someone who does have to take one and pay for them

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

their right to privacy does not trump my right to safety

gue_barium

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

their right to privacy does not trump my right to safety

a urine test does not make you any safer than no urine test. period. get a clue.

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

The substance does not matter the question is should someone who receives state assistance be scrutinized (spelling?) to a "substance" test as someone who does have to take one and pay for them

And my answer is no ... they should not have to take them, and neither should you.

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

And my answer is no ... they should not have to take them, and neither should you.

You know the funny thing is that i do not agree for tests but i do believe that if people are recieving assistance that they should be held to some sort of accountability for what they spend on. I know again there is privacy violations again but some of the people do not spend the money on what they should like food shelter clothing for them.

bovy_j

hippiemom wrote:

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

I agree with that statement fully!

Yet, I've never been asked to give a urine test. Or...never heard of anyone who had to give a urine test up here in my part of Canada!