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

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?

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
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

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...
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



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.

Millwright Ron wrote:
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?

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 ****ed
in a bottle for an employer.

Millwright Ron wrote:
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

Have you asked WHY? you need this test?
It could be something to do with your bosse's
employers liability insurnce.
It could be a condition that all staff are fit, ie not diabetic for
which the employer might be liable.
As an afterthought are there any female members of staff? do they too
have to pee into a bowl as well?
I had to provide a sample for a blood sugar olerance ctest, needed for a
HGV gooods driving licence for anyone over 70 yrs old.
I filled up a 1 pint bottle and took it in. Asked the testing nurse if
it was enough?
I was the joke of the day at the surgery!!.

Just a thought.

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


Millwright Wrong wrote:
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

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
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.
snip

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!

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron
wrote:

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


And when they don't pass a **** 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

Millwright Ron wrote:
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?

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

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron wrote:
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.
(snip)

Do you often repost emailed forwards without attribution?

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

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

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 :

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

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


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.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
et...
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!

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.

good point - I'd support an initiative to make that law
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Dec 11, 9:03 am, Millwright Ron wrote:
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

Is the boss required to pass the pee test?

TMT

On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Jim Stewart wrote:
Millwright Ron wrote:
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?

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 ****ed
in a bottle for an employer.

You haven't changed employers lately then.

The pee test is very popular to test for illegal/legal drugs, alcohol
and nicotine.

Companies are also cherry picking employees for insurance purposes
testing for diabetes and high cholestrol among other things.

Other companies are doing a complete genetic runup on your samples to
insure that no one who needs major medical work in the future sneaks
in.

There is other testing looking for lead...for those who own guns.

Welcome to the wonderful pro business climate we have.

TMT

On Dec 11, 12:39 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron





wrote:
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

And when they don't pass a **** 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you have the right to bear arms, doesn't she have the right to bear
children?

TMT

Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

Tom

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:48:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 11, 12:39 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron





wrote:
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

And when they don't pass a **** 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you have the right to bear arms, doesn't she have the right to bear
children?

TMT


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

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

Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

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

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

Tom

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

Steve

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Is the boss required to pass the pee test?

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

Wes

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Jim Stewart wrote:

Companies are also cherry picking employees for insurance purposes
testing for diabetes and high cholestrol among other things.

Other companies are doing a complete genetic runup on your samples to
insure that no one who needs major medical work in the future sneaks
in.

There is other testing looking for lead...for those who own guns.

Welcome to the wonderful pro business climate we have.

TMT

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

Ivan Vegvary

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Jim Stewart wrote:

Companies are also cherry picking employees for insurance purposes
testing for diabetes and high cholestrol among other things.

Other companies are doing a complete genetic runup on your samples to
insure that no one who needs major medical work in the future sneaks
in.

There is other testing looking for lead...for those who own guns.

Welcome to the wonderful pro business climate we have.

TMT

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

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

On Dec 12, 6:00 am, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:48:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:39 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron

wrote:
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

And when they don't pass a **** 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you have the right to bear arms, doesn't she have the right to bear
children?

TMT

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But weren't you the one just a few posts ago advocating mandated birth
control?

TMT

On Dec 12, 8:29 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:18:46 +1300, with neither quill nor qualm, Tom
quickly quoth:





Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or conservative Religious Right families that have 15+ kids?

And yes many of them are on the public dime....Praise the Lord and
let's have another one Huney!


TMT

On Dec 12, 11:08 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message

...





Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

Tom

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

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that a problem?

If you drug test, then everyone gets tested...including the CEO and
owner.

TMT

On Dec 12, 3:12 pm, "Ivan Vegvary" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...

On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Jim Stewart wrote:

Companies are also cherry picking employees for insurance purposes
testing for diabetes and high cholestrol among other things.

Other companies are doing a complete genetic runup on your samples to
insure that no one who needs major medical work in the future sneaks
in.

There is other testing looking for lead...for those who own guns.

Welcome to the wonderful pro business climate we have.

TMT

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

Ivan Vegvary

Do your homework...I did mine.

It happens...and I have had family members and friends have it done to
them.

TMT

On Dec 12, 2:38 pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Is the boss required to pass the pee test?

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

Wes

Of course they do.

Alcohol and drug usage is common in management.

TMT

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:39:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:




And when they don't pass a **** 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

I'd like to see some drill sergeants drop in on the housing projects.
Have everyone fall out in ranks and count off. Every fifth welfare
momma is a baby sitter. Everyone else go get a job!!

'course, we'd have to do this in the mid-afternoon after they are all
awake.

--Andy Asberry--
------Texas-----

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...



I'd like to see some drill sergeants drop in on the housing projects.
Have everyone fall out in ranks and count off. Every fifth welfare
momma is a baby sitter. Everyone else go get a job!!

'course, we'd have to do this in the mid-afternoon after they are all
awake.

--Andy Asberry--


the other day i thought the reason we don't have the social programs they
have in scandinavian countries is because they're more or less homogeneous
societies over there (and they pay whopping taxes but apparently it's ok
with the majority of citizens), here there'd be too many people begrudging
giving benefits to others they don't like (i.e. "racism"). like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. white families can't get day care etc.
because too many people would begrudge giving it to black families. THAT'S
a terrible legacy of slavery. (my father blew his brains out in '65 and my
mother tells me when she went to apply they laughed at her and told her to
go get a job, she did get a job but it was rough for us.) u.s. citizens
can't enjoy the same standard of living other countries enjoy.
back to the o.p.'s point, that doesn't seem like a bad idea, drug testing
for bene's. that way if there was a drug problem maybe they could start to
remedy it and maybe it would be a strong incentive to get off the drojas.

b.w.

On Dec 12, 9:07 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message

...



I'd like to see some drill sergeants drop in on the housing projects.
Have everyone fall out in ranks and count off. Every fifth welfare
momma is a baby sitter. Everyone else go get a job!!

'course, we'd have to do this in the mid-afternoon after they are all
awake.

--Andy Asberry--

the other day i thought the reason we don't have the social programs they
have in scandinavian countries is because they're more or less homogeneous
societies over there (and they pay whopping taxes but apparently it's ok
with the majority of citizens), here there'd be too many people begrudging
giving benefits to others they don't like (i.e. "racism"). like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. white families can't get day care etc.
because too many people would begrudge giving it to black families. THAT'S
a terrible legacy of slavery. (my father blew his brains out in '65 and my
mother tells me when she went to apply they laughed at her and told her to
go get a job, she did get a job but it was rough for us.) u.s. citizens
can't enjoy the same standard of living other countries enjoy.
back to the o.p.'s point, that doesn't seem like a bad idea, drug testing
for bene's. that way if there was a drug problem maybe they could start to
remedy it and maybe it would be a strong incentive to get off the drojas.

b.w.

First let me say that I don't like the current situation either.

But it surprises me that the same people (usually conservatives) who
don't want the Government messing with their lives are more than
willing to have drug testing for others.

Their tune changes when the testing applies to them (alcohol,
nicotine, drugs, medical screening).

TMT

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:23:00 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 12, 6:00 am, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:48:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:39 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron

wrote:
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

And when they don't pass a **** 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you have the right to bear arms, doesn't she have the right to bear
children?

TMT

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But weren't you the one just a few posts ago advocating mandated birth
control?

TMT

Yes, for those seeking welfare. Something else btw, not allowed for in
the Constitution. The bogus claim welfare is covered under the
"promote the general welfare" statement is exactly that.bogus.

So if a mom wants to enroll herself and her kid(s) on welfare rolls,
it would not be unwarranted that she must be given a Norplant before
receiving her second welfare check.

This is not of course, any restriction on her Rights, as she is
pefectly free to refuse the Norplant, get a job and not go on welfare.
There are LOADS of free governmental programs for education, training
and so forth.

If someone is unemployed because of lack of job skills..the government
has pretty good programs (also not allowed in the Constituiton) to
correct that.

The "welfare reform" that Clinton refused to sign 2x, and signed the
3rd time because to not sign, would cost him an election, seems to
have worked quite admirably so far.

The same welfare reform that the Libtards claimed would kill millions
of children btw.

But like the Libtards stance on Bilingual education..it turned out to
be dead wrong as well.

The Libtards seem to get things dead wrong, so consistantly, that its
scary that they still can pull strings.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:24:57 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 12, 8:29 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:18:46 +1300, with neither quill nor qualm, Tom
quickly quoth:





Millwright Ron wrote:

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

I think this is a dishonest post.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or conservative Religious Right families that have 15+ kids?

Wow...can you point them out?

Now about Democrat families with a ****load of kids...look at any
Title 8 housing project, or ghetto.

And yes many of them are on the public dime....Praise the Lord and
let's have another one Huney!


TMT

Then get em off the rolls.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:26:13 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


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

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that a problem?

If you drug test, then everyone gets tested...including the CEO and
owner.

TMT


Why? Or do you think that all is equal?

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:25:00 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:07 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message

...



I'd like to see some drill sergeants drop in on the housing projects.
Have everyone fall out in ranks and count off. Every fifth welfare
momma is a baby sitter. Everyone else go get a job!!

'course, we'd have to do this in the mid-afternoon after they are all
awake.

--Andy Asberry--

the other day i thought the reason we don't have the social programs they
have in scandinavian countries is because they're more or less homogeneous
societies over there (and they pay whopping taxes but apparently it's ok
with the majority of citizens), here there'd be too many people begrudging
giving benefits to others they don't like (i.e. "racism"). like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. white families can't get day care etc.
because too many people would begrudge giving it to black families. THAT'S
a terrible legacy of slavery. (my father blew his brains out in '65 and my
mother tells me when she went to apply they laughed at her and told her to
go get a job, she did get a job but it was rough for us.) u.s. citizens
can't enjoy the same standard of living other countries enjoy.
back to the o.p.'s point, that doesn't seem like a bad idea, drug testing
for bene's. that way if there was a drug problem maybe they could start to
remedy it and maybe it would be a strong incentive to get off the drojas.

b.w.

First let me say that I don't like the current situation either.

But it surprises me that the same people (usually conservatives) who
don't want the Government messing with their lives are more than
willing to have drug testing for others.

Their tune changes when the testing applies to them (alcohol,
nicotine, drugs, medical screening).

TMT


Really? Cites?

Gunner

PLUNK

Blocked another one!

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
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

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:07 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message

. ..




I'd like to see some drill sergeants drop in on the housing projects.
Have everyone fall out in ranks and count off. Every fifth welfare
momma is a baby sitter. Everyone else go get a job!!

'course, we'd have to do this in the mid-afternoon after they are all
awake.

--Andy Asberry--

the other day i thought the reason we don't have the social programs they
have in scandinavian countries is because they're more or less homogeneous
societies over there (and they pay whopping taxes but apparently it's ok
with the majority of citizens), here there'd be too many people begrudging
giving benefits to others they don't like (i.e. "racism"). like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. white families can't get day care etc.
because too many people would begrudge giving it to black families. THAT'S
a terrible legacy of slavery. (my father blew his brains out in '65 and my
mother tells me when she went to apply they laughed at her and told her to
go get a job, she did get a job but it was rough for us.) u.s. citizens
can't enjoy the same standard of living other countries enjoy.
back to the o.p.'s point, that doesn't seem like a bad idea, drug testing
for bene's. that way if there was a drug problem maybe they could start to
remedy it and maybe it would be a strong incentive to get off the drojas.

b.w.


First let me say that I don't like the current situation either.

But it surprises me that the same people (usually conservatives) who
don't want the Government messing with their lives are more than
willing to have drug testing for others.

Their tune changes when the testing applies to them (alcohol,
nicotine, drugs, medical screening).

TMT



Not always. I'm a conservative and I have no problem with ****ing in a
bottle. Well, that is I don't have a problem with the concept of the
test but I may have trouble ****ing in a bottle. But that's a medical
thing.

Jim

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

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

Wes

Of course they do.

Alcohol and drug usage is common in management.

Well I knew that. Everyone that ever worked the floor knows the front
office is high on drugs.

Wes

In article , Wes
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

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

Wes

Of course they do.

Alcohol and drug usage is common in management.

Well I knew that. Everyone that ever worked the floor knows the front
office is high on drugs.

Wes

Watch out if you:

A) Have to take **** tests at work

and

B) take Protonix -- It gives false positives for marijuana.