Re: Wonder why "no name" hasn't seemed to respond to thread? NFM
On 5/23/08, johnv wrote:
> Haaa! We do agree on something. Drug screening for most, I SAID MOST,
> welfare receipients would cut down on the amount of tax dollars spent
> to support the lifestyle that is ripping our nation apart. But, if I
> expect them to pee in a cup, so will I. I have nothing to hide. Don't
> give me the privacy BS because anyone can take your name and have a
> conplete background search done in ten minutes. That is an invasion of
> privacy. Peeing in a cup is minor in my book considering all the other
> threats that are out there. What can they learn from a cup
> of "pwhatever"? Where I live? No! SS number? No! Bank accounts? No!
> Given a little "research" time on the internet things change. Close
> up "live" video of your house? Yes! Who lives in your house? Yes! How
> much you make? Yes! Are you single? Yes! These are the thing that worry
> me about privacy. $9.99 on E-bay will yield software to do all the
> above searches without you even knowing about it. Just seems your
> priorities are a little skewed, but have a great day anyway!
> On 5/22/08, LaTeach wrote:
>> Most "real world" jobs require you to submit to random urine tests.
>> That being said, I've been working in the "real world" for over 10
>> years now (4 in education) and have never been asked to submit a
>> sample. The real question you should ask yourself is what kind of
>> example are you setting for children if you're worried about the
>> outcome of the test?
>> And on my other soapbox why is it that I have to be subject to a
>> random urine test in order to have a job, pay taxes, social security,
>> etc., yet welfare receipients are not required to take one in order
>> to receive assistance? Think of the how much the state could save
>> (and re-invest in education) if this were the case!