Here's a copy of that post:
"Whoooo-Hoooo!!!! Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't?… Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states!!!!"
A bit of discussion was started with a couple of varing viewpoints. I had thought about making comments of my own, there on her page, but thought I might have a bit more to say on the subject, so I put it here instead.
The Welfare State of Mind: I'm Entitled!
(Smoke Two Joints...)
Many companies require drug testing as a part of the Application & New-Hire process. Quite a few continue testing randomly throughout the term of employment.
This testing is done for one main reason:
Mitigating Liability.
If a company wants lower insurance premiums, less vunerability to lawsuits, and the ability to separate the company from the individual who acts irresponsibly under the influence while acting as an agent of the company, they choose to require drug screening.
Makes sense to me whether I like it or not. The Company has acted responsibly, preserving their assests proactively. They have performed 'due diligence' in protecting themselves and the customers they serve.
That said, let's move on to Welfare.
In general, I like the concept.
In seeing the results, I do not.
Everyone needs help from time to time. Some don't have wealthy families or friends to lend a hand: Some did, until they began asking too often.
Unfortunately, getting something for free makes one comfortable & expecting more of the same. The sense of appreciation in getting the help quickly fades into a determination to figure out how to get more of it, rather than moving on; a definate distraction helping one better themselves and 'stand on their own two feet', so to speak.
A sense of 'Entitlement' & 'Deserving' (no personal action required) quickly replaces 'Lacking & Needing' (which normally requires personal effort to overcome).
To further clarify my point, I'll share a personal reflection that was confusing & frustrating at first, then appreciated in retrospect.
I recall the day, as a young man, that I went & asked my Dad for some spending money for this or that. He looked at me and said 'Don't have it to give. Guess your gonna have to get your own'.
You know, it turns out that's exactly how the real world works...
OK, onto the issue of the State's choice. Seems that right off the bat, people seem to be upset because they feel the State has no business in their personal life; thus this cry of unconstitutionality. Really?
Have these people thought that MAYBE these States are acting proactively in identifying where the real help is needed? 'OK, you have no money & don't work & now we see that this could be because you have an addiction that's possibly a big part of the root problem. Here's how we start helping you ...'
This incurs more expense of this State, now providing substance abuse programs for those who obviously can't afford them. This expense should however, aid to healthier & more employable citizens
This type of State expense is much more prudent than just placing 'band-aids' (handouts) on gaping wounds (poverty).
But, is this constitutional? Well, I'm not a lawyer and haven't read these States constitutions so I'll reserve that for those of you who are & have. MY guess would be that the people who live in those States would rather have job-providing companies looking in their direction as the population is generally more employable there because the State has performed it's 'due diligence'.
- If I file for unemployment, I've got to be looking for a job.
- If I'm asking for a job, I've gotta be ready to work.
- If I want to be ready to work, I've gotta be responsible enough to do so.
(All of these above somehow involve my personal life)
- If you ask the State for assistance, you've gotta be ready to be a 'Ward' of the State.
- If you're prepared to a 'ward' of the State, even temporarily, better be prepared for personal exposure.
- If you're prepared for personal exposure, congratulations, 'You're Employable'.
Even today, if I'd ask my Dad for money, the answer would probably be the same. If he did have some to spare, he'd darn sure ask very pointedly 'What are you spending your money on Boy?'
No offense intended to those in need of assistance;
unless you're comfortable with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment