Urine Test

Like a lot of folks in this country... I have a job. I work, they pay me.I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. 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 sitting on their butt and using drugs. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Millwright Ron

Reply to
Millwright Ron
Loading thread data ...

The best part is standing in line at the grocery store and watching the people separate out their items into two groups. The first group... milk, bread, cereal, etc gets paid for with food stamps because they don't have enough money to eat. The second group... beer, booze, cigarettes, etc gets paid for with cash because they can always scrounge up beer money. LOL Why go without beer and cigarettes if somebody is willing to buy your food?

Reply to
David Courtney

Millwright Ron wrote in article ...

Yet more union B.S.

Imagine how much money could be saved if nobody except legitimately suspected drug users had to participate in drug screening.

Nobody should need to pass a urine test for a job that doesn't involve the safety of the public.

The Constitution guarantees "presumption of innocence." Pre-employment drug testing is a presumption of guilt, forcing one to prove his innocence by taking that drug screening.

OTOH, if the crapola unions would stop fighting to retain jobs for drug users, allow random drug tests for reasonable cause for suspected drug users, companies would be able to fire people on the spot for drug use, and the alleged drug problem in the workplace would be solved.

One strike and you're out works fine for me when it comes to drug use in the workplace.

Reply to
*

You don't "have" to pass one.

You can vote with your feet and find a job where the boss has some trust in you and doesn't demand that you pee in a bottle.

I've worked coming up on 40 years and never pissed in a bottle for an employer.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

Your Urine Test does not req you to pee on this NG. Buzz off, Union Stiff. JR Dweller in the cellar

Millwright Wr> Like a lot of folks in this country... I have

Reply to
JR North

I'm in union negotiations right now. They want me to have no right to even ASK for a drug test even if somebody is fall-down drunk. Union ASSHOLES are destroying what is left!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

And when they don't pass a piss test, then what?

The kids starve, so the State takes em away. Then what? The kids get farmed out to foster families? There are only so many available. So the kids have to be stockpiled in a government institution, of which there are limited numbers...so we have to build new ones, staff and maintain them.

Its cheaper to simply send them a check, put them up in Title 8 housing and let em live or die.

Id rather see mandatory contraceptive implants in any woman receiving welfare.

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner

Is this the same Millwright Ron who recently was touting the virtues of unionism? It seems like a GOOD union would not allow such a thing.

Two times at the last of my career, I was drug tested. Union job. Once when something flew into my eye in a wind and stuck in my cornea, the other when a pick shifted on my tines and fell. No one hurt.

Both times, both the steward and cabbie asked me if I needed anything to help pass the test. No, because I don't do drugs. Seems like you need to get yourself some good stewards.

hehe

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

(snip)

Do you often repost emailed forwards without attribution?

Reply to
Dave Hinz

But what about their right to 52" wide-screen HDTV and HBO? And none of that 720 shit, it's 1080p or nothing! ...and I-Phones, don't forget I-phones!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned "Tom Gardner" wrote on Tue, 11 Dec 2007

20:48:14 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

You have the right to be born naked. You have the right to breathe the air. You have the right to attempt to improve your lot. You have a right to look for work. You have a right to dream, hope and have expectations. You have the right to fail.

Your right to speak your mind does not come with a right to be taken seriously or even listened too. Herbert Hoover said that.

Yes, the world does owe you a living, but you will have to work hard to collect.

pyotr

-- pyotr filipivich Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms: 1) There is a God. 2) It's not you.

Reply to
pyotr filipivich

Tom, best wishes with your negotiations.

Back 30 years ago I bought a company that had a handful of union employees (and a handful of non-union employees). We were paying skilled leaders about $27 per hour and unskilled labor was $21 per hour (yea, high, SanFrancisco Bay Area wages). On top of the above I would send the union $

13 per hour per worker for benefits. High, especially for the $21 wage earner. Not knowing any better, on paydays I would give them a receipt explaining all the deductions for FICA, taxes etc. I also added a column stating that on their behalf we sent $ ### to the union for their benefits package. WRONG!!! They filed an NLRB action against me. It was illegal to remind the workers that the employer is actually paying for all of those benefits! It's called harassment.

Long story short, I got the best labor lawyers in the area and after 6 months of negotiations (the contract was up at this time) we were successfully able to pull out of the union. We were able to prove that because of industry-wide contract (wage) agreements, the union was not negotiating in good faith.

Ivan Vegvary

BTW, those union members would go around bragging what great benefits were provided for them by the union! No clue as to who pays for same.

Reply to
Ivan Vegvary

Reply to
William Noble

I think this is a dishonest post.

Tom

Reply to
Tom

Oh..she indeed has the right to bear as many kids as she can poop out. However, nothing in the Constitution indicates we have the requirement to pay for them, or for her to do so.

Just as the Constition doesnt place a limit on the number of weapons I can own, nor does it force you to pay for my new weapons.

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:18:46 +1300, with neither quill nor qualm, Tom quickly quoth:

Is that in consideration of overpayments to union workers? I actually found myself agreeing with his concept, though. We shouldn't support baby factories or druggies with tax dollars.

-- My future starts when I wake up every morning... Every day I find something creative to do with my life. -- Miles Davis

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Considering the post, he would probably want every nonunion worker tested, too.

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

Do you think has advanced knowledge of 'random drug screenings'?

Wes

Reply to
Wes

Please forward references showing where companies are testing for diabetes, cholesterol, genetics etc. Back up these claims.

Ivan Vegvary

Reply to
Ivan Vegvary

Jim Stewart didn't write the above post. Please be careful about attribution.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.