|
Florida legislator wants random drug tests for the unemployed (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
unemployment law can be changed to grant this aid only those who are willing for random tests... and i guess that's the case with this new law.
It's not like unemployment aid is a constitutionnal right and then they force you to a test...
anyways, as if I care, i'm just trying to annoy you potheads. |
As long as they refund the taxes they took from said person that would be fine. |
|
|
| winston |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
unemployment law can be changed to grant this aid only those who are willing for random tests... and i guess that's the case with this new law.
It's not like unemployment aid is a constitutionnal right and then they force you to a test...
anyways, as if I care, i'm just trying to annoy you potheads. |
Ok, So bank tellers are encouraged to snort cocaine while they take care of other people's money, but they are discouraged to smoke marijuana which would promote more ethical behavior, thus reducing the chances of making 'bad decisions' ?
just a thought |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by winston
Ok, So bank tellers are encouraged to snort cocaine while they take care of other people's money, but they are discouraged to smoke marijuana which would promote more ethical behavior, thus reducing the chances of making 'bad decisions' ?
just a thought |
The point is this would tax citizens to setup unemployment and then subject those same citizens to warrantless searches of their body to obtain said benefits. That is a direct violation of the 4th amendment and leaves the government open to further litigation which will most likely end up declaring the law unconstitutional. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
The point is this would tax citizens to setup unemployment and then subject those same citizens to warrantless searches of their body to obtain said benefits. That is a direct violation of the 4th amendment and leaves the government open to further litigation which will most likely end up declaring the law unconstitutional. |
It's definitely not that straightforward. It is not, for example, a violation of the 4th amendment to use tax revenue to build an airport, then require people to consent to a warrantless security search in order to use it.
Off the top of my head, the best argument here would be that consent is coerced because the people giving it need unemployment to meet their basic needs, and that absent consent the search fails the reasonablness prong because of its invasive nature and the (at least arguably) weak policy goals that the search serves. That said, good luck with that in our presently quite conservative judiciary... |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It's definitely not that straightforward. It is not, for example, a violation of the 4th amendment to use tax revenue to build an airport, then require people to consent to a warrantless security search in order to use it.
Off the top of my head, the best argument here would be that consent is coerced because the people giving it need unemployment to meet their basic needs, and that absent consent the search fails the reasonablness prong because of its invasive nature and the (at least arguably) weak policy goals that the search serves. That said, good luck with that in our presently quite conservative judiciary... |
Wouldn't you say that a security search at an airport is much more justified?
And yes I do see the coercion as people need to work to live, but do not need to be allowed in an airport to live. Then again they aren't drug testing people buying plane tickets now are they? |
|
|
| Theresa |
I think it's a good idea.
You aren't "entitled" to unemployment benefits, so having to take a test is not an infringement of a person's rights. That's like saying you're "entitled" to an education, and thus shouldn't have to take a test to get the diploma. If you want it, you take the test. If you have something to hide, that's your own problem.
If you're unemployed you really shouldn't be spending your money, and time on like drugs anyway. You should be out looking for a job, and chances are, if you are taking drugs, you can't get employed because you wont pass the drug test. Is that the tax payers fault? Should the general population foot the bill for you to live because you're a stoner and can't support yourself?
You pay into unemployment so that you are protected in the event that you are legitimately unable to find/keep a job. That's why it's called "insurance" (or at least it is in Canada). Far too often it is being abused by drug addicts as a way to support their lifestyle.
With that being said, I know there are a lot of people who smoke pot who are totally competent, but if you're unemployed, any competent person is going to know that in order to get a job, they should really put the pot smoking on hold until they are employed again. If you are too dumb to figure that out, or can't curb your habit long enough to do that, again, it's your own problem. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Wouldn't you say that a security search at an airport is much more justified?
And yes I do see the coercion as people need to work to live, but do not need to be allowed in an airport to live. Then again they aren't drug testing people buying plane tickets now are they? |
I kind of agree with you. Without having done any research, I think that considering the invasiveness of the search and the half-assed justification there's an argument to be made, but my gut instinct is that most courts would not buy it. Maybe in the 9th circuit... |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I kind of agree with you. Without having done any research, I think that considering the invasiveness of the search and the half-assed justification there's an argument to be made, but my gut instinct is that most courts would not buy it. Maybe in the 9th circuit... |
Well if Roweazie's info is correct and MI said drug testing welfare recepients is illegal under the 4th amendment it seems FL would follow suit.
But yes it is up to the actual people in that court, and how they feel on that specific day. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
It probably wouldn't save much money. Think of all the bureaucratic expenses
edit: and everyone would try and appeal the tests and |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Well if Roweazie's info is correct and MI said drug testing welfare recepients is illegal under the 4th amendment it seems FL would follow suit.
But yes it is up to the actual people in that court, and how they feel on that specific day. |
Yeah, I just looked up that case. It's a weird one.
The district court applied the balancing test sort of like I supposed: it said that it was pretty intrusive so the government had to show a compelling interest and found that the government had no such compelling interest.
A three judge panel on the 6th circuit then reversed, upholding the law as constitutional, but the 6th circuit granted a rehearing en banc (before all the judges on the circuit). That rehearing ended in a 6-6 tie, which under 6th circuit rules apparently affirms the judgment of the lower court, so the law was basically struck down by a tie. That's much better than I would have expected, but far from an earth-shattering victory.
The outcome of that case tells us two things: yes, there's definitely a legitimate argument that a similar statute in FL would violate the constitution. And yes, it would most definitely depend on the particular judge(s) handling the case, because on the Michigan law the courts were all over the place.
Edit: no wonder the 6th circuit was all over the place. The Supreme Court precedent on the issue makes no sense. Within a two year period they apparently held that it was perfectly reasonable to require participants in high school sports to submit to such suspicionless searches, but it was unreasonable and unconstitutional to require the same of candidates for public office. Utterly bizarre. I'll have to read those opinions to see how they rationalize that later. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I don't see a huge issue here, as long as it is implemented properly.
I think it's fairly easy to make the jump to seeing unemployment as having a government job, at least to some degree. Based on the reason for your unemployment, you're being "paid" to find a new job, or to put yourself into a position to get a job. Just like a government job, your check comes from the government and your "client" is the taxpayer. Just like a government job, or many other jobs for that matter, they are able to test you for impairment within reason. If being high or strung out is deemed to be an impairment to getting hired, then I don't see the big deal.
Now, there would have to be some caveats. The testing should probably be reserved for those that are on unemployment for a long period of time. If someone is on it for only a week or two, it would be a waste of everyone's time and money to test. If a person is on it for months and months, then it would make more sense. You'd also have to make sure you had a pretty good procedure for confirming positive results so you didn't end up screwing innocent people over. |
|
|
| aNYthing |
| quote: | Originally posted by Audious
I don't see how this is so terrible.
If you're collecting unemployment, it should be to get you from losing your current job to finding a new one. It's not dick around money to buy you don't need. I think they should apply this to other non-essentials.
If the government's giving you money because you simply don't have a job, I don't see why they can't decide what they want you to spend it on.
Edit: That being said, if you can hold a job, smoke weed, do blow, take pills to your heart's content, but if I'm paying for your ass cause you got fired, I'm not paying for your weed. |
Hey retard - you're not paying for him, the employer does. It's called "unemployment insurance" and paid by the company you work for.
| quote: | Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[8]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if:
(1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[8]
(2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[8]
To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[8]
The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[9] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[7] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[8] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[8]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[8]
Within the above constraints, the individual states and territories raise their own contributions and run their own programs. The federal government sets broad guidelines for coverage and eligibility, but states vary in how they determine benefits and eligibility.
Federal rules are drawn by the United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. For most states, the maximum period for receiving benefits is 26 weeks. There is an extended benefit program (authorized through the Social Security Acts) that may be triggered by state economic conditions. Congress has often passed temporary programs to extend benefits during economic recessions. Most recently, this was through the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program, which has since expired.[6]
The federal government lends money to the states for unemployment insurance when the states run short of funds. In general, this can happen when the unemployment rate is high. The need for loans can be exacerbated when a state cuts taxes and increases benefits. All loans must be repaid with interest.
Congressional actions to massively increase penalties for states incurring large debts for unemployment benefits led to state fiscal crises in the 1980s.[citation needed]
Because it is a joint federal/state program run by the states, taxing business for the benefit of labor, the politics of unemployment insurance are very complex. |
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_insurance
So, what's next? They can tell you which doctors you can see? Or where you can buy what food? Or what kind of food you can buy? Oh wait... it's called "welfare" and that your tax dollars do pay for some families to abuse for generations. |
|
|
|
|
