Lepage's new budget lowers taxes, ... - Page 8 - City-Data Forum

Zymer · 07-21-2011, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

So again, why then is it acceptable to drug test people who are applying for jobs, but somehow we are violating rights by drug testing someone who is applying for welfare?! Think about it for awhile. Also, fingerprinting someone who is applying for a job is also commonplace. Why isn't it "unconstitutional" to drug test and fingerprint those applying for jobs rather than applying for a handout.

Because applying for a job is optional, and the employer may set any conditions he/she/it/they please. If you don't like the conditions being set, then you simply don't apply for the job.

You do not have a 'right' to any particular job, while the employer *does* have the right to set any standards or conditions they wish in their screening of potential employees. (I don't like it, I think it is insulting, but I [grudgingly] accept that it is their right to do it.)

reloop · 07-21-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zymer

You do not have a 'right' to any particular job, while the employer *does* have the right to set any standards or conditions they wish in their screening of potential employees. (I don't like it, I think it is insulting, but I [grudgingly] accept that it is their right to do it.)

Exactly. Well said.

Maine Writer · 07-22-2011, 12:45 AM

What do you suppose our forefathers would think if they knew people who make welfare a way of life in 2011 would have more rights than the working people who support them? It sure as hell wouldn't be "The Way Life Should Be."

mensaguy · 07-22-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maine Writer

What do you suppose our forefathers would think if they knew people who make welfare a way of life in 2011 would have more rights than the working people who support them? It sure as hell wouldn't be "The Way Life Should Be."

What rights would that be?

Northern Maine Land Man · 07-22-2011, 08:17 PM

$56,000 a year for a single mom with two kids. They get free dental along with everything else.

Meanwhile, the hard working family next door does not have all these benefits. Maine has more generous benefits than 47 other states. We are going to make a move toward the national average. The working people in Maine can't afford to keep those folks in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. Minnesota did it. Nobody starved. Most simply went to work.What an idea!

Submariner · 07-24-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mensaguy

What rights would that be?

Perhaps the feeling when one is working hard for a living to support their family; while another is bringing in a higher income by living off state-aid.

mainegrl2011 · 07-24-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zymer

Because applying for a job is optional, and the employer may set any conditions he/she/it/they please. If you don't like the conditions being set, then you simply don't apply for the job.

You do not have a 'right' to any particular job, while the employer *does* have the right to set any standards or conditions they wish in their screening of potential employees. (I don't like it, I think it is insulting, but I [grudgingly] accept that it is their right to do it.)

Yes, I agree it is insulting because there is also no probable cause or reason to think that I will fail the tests but when I apply for a job in the public or private sector, I don't like it, but I submit to the testing because I like to have money to spend, money I earn myself. Apparently those applying for welfare also like having money to spend--other people's money/tax dollars.

While I certainly respect your RIGHT to your opinion, I do not believe that receiving welfare is a RIGHT, do you? Applying for welfare is also optional just as you say applying for a job is optional. If the welfare recipients don't like the conditions being set by those who are paying taxes to provide them with a handout, then don't apply. Maybe they should try harder to find work or submit to the same tests required for those applying for jobs.

A few thoughts I would like for you to comment on... if the employer is the government in any form then if your logic holds true then setting conditions for employment that involve drug testing or fingerprinting is just as unconstitutional as requiring the tests in order to receive welfare--unless you really believe that receiving welfare is a RIGHT.

If we all decide to apply for the RIGHT of welfare, who will work and pay taxes so that it will be available? I do not believe welfare is a right. Why won't you stand up for the RIGHTS of those who work and pay taxes?

mainebrokerman · 07-24-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zymer

Because applying for a job is optional, and the employer may set any conditions he/she/it/they please. If you don't like the conditions being set, then you simply don't apply for the job.

You do not have a 'right' to any particular job, while the employer *does* have the right to set any standards or conditions they wish in their screening of potential employees. (I don't like it, I think it is insulting, but I [grudgingly] accept that it is their right to do it.)

I had to take a drug test recently, for a job, never had to do it before-but it's the company's policy- had to take a physical too,
I didnt have a problem with it, yes it was an inconvenience, but the nurse was a looker and I had nothing to hide/ or be concerned about
yes, im all against government intrusion, and respecting rights, however I also dont believe it's a level playing field, because of so much fraud in the welfare system,

JViello · 07-24-2011, 03:03 PM

The lines are being blurred between a private company, and the government.

Big difference. The government becomes a lord and taskmaster once law is instituted. A private company does not, and is afforded certain rights.

Fix the program, not the people. Arguing about the requirements of the program when the program itself is the problem is being a bit "after the fact".

mainegrl2011 · 07-26-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MainerWannabe

One thing I have noticed is that we are forgetting that we just (barely) came out of the WORST recession this country has ever seen, second ONLY to the Great Depression. A whole lot of people really needed to go on welfare, and for a longer period of time. It seems to me that we are painting all welfare recipients with an immense shame brush. Not everybody is milking the system and/or just sitting at home doing dope. Not in Maine or in any other state of the union. Jobs just aren't there! Perhaps politicians really should start getting around to fix that, and stop just pandering to their bases and blaming it all on the weakest and the poorest. It's their fault. THEY put us in this situation.
For the record I thought that there were good points in this law, and a change is indeed needed. But let's put the blame where the blame lies.

Of course all welfare recipients are not drug addicts. Many people who lost their jobs were on extended unemployment benefits and some may have turned to welfare once the extended unemployment ran out. People need jobs all over this country. Do you really think we have come out of the recession? I don't. There are no where near enough people being hired each month to warrant a statement that we are out of the recession. I spoke to someone recently who spends the summer in Maine and lives in CA the rest of the year. He said 30,000 teachers were just laid off in CA.

For years people have been coming to Bar Harbor from other countries to work for the season when there are people from Maine who need jobs. Do we have a shortage of people in Hancock County who are willing to work seasonal jobs? A relative of mine has worked a seasonal job for the past 17 years. Another relative worked a seasonal job his entire life. I could list additional examples, but I will stop there for now.