Drug test for welfare
- Thread starter cary schellie
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'm trying to determine if it's union featherbedding or a practical thing, or if a mix, how much of each. cn
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Hehe, must have missed the point. 200,000/year is nothing compared to the 750 million in just three months of road work, which is nothing compared to the 118billion in State welfare expenditures... Shrx was under the impression that 249K/year for a state is a big loss - I was trying to convince him otherwise
Corso312
Well-Known Member
well lets just guesstimate since gastanker used garbagemen as an example...what do you think a new truck costs with a boom? 250k ? and it would eliminate 3 men @ 75 k a year salary ..throw in benefits and over 100 k per man per year...so it can only be one thing..corruption/handout ...you could do this in almost every single government sector ...but people are complaining at the single women who get chump change to help make life a little easier.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Do you live in a city? In San Fransisco they can't use booms - the garbage men work their asses off running into the back of buildings down narrow narrow alleys hauling heavy heavy loads. Pretty bold (and arrogant) of you to say it's easy work.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Ok featherbedding. ~shrug~ Chicago. cn
jessy koons
New Member
In the California cities that I'm familiar with they are using the boom grab system. Garbage haulers don't have the political clout to insist on unnecesary labor for municipal duties. That ability seems to mostly be in the hands of the police and fire departments. The City of Vallejo had to declare bankruptcy a few years ago because the police and fire folks were sucking 75% of the cities revenue out of their piggybank. Stockton is going the same route today.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Every unit has a bin they put on the corner? I can't imagine that...
Why are the single mothers using drugs?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not sure I see that as a necessary conclusion. The trashman example is not generally applicable imo.
Furthermore, replacing labor with technology opens up a whole passel of jobs maintaining and repairing said technology. If anything, it might grow net employable positions. Jmo. cn
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
And what about every other instance? Is the legal clerk that gets paid diddly squat not really working because the government pays him? All the Boeing employees aren't working and are actually just receiving handouts because the government is buying their planes? Get real.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
But according to him then the tech firms would be receiving handouts as they are receiving government money... Hes trying to make the point that everyone that is paid with money that passed through the government isn't actually working and is the same as those receiving welfare... Absolutely ridiculous logic.
If lowering the number of workers on the back of a dump truck was cost effective than by all means - I personally have a feeling they need the extra people but I don't live in Chicago I have no idea how they deal with garbage there. But to say that regardless of whether there is 1 or 4 men working a truck, none of them are actually working and they are the same as those on welfare is crazy.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
That's why I keep bringing up boeing... Because they are funded by the Gov... You are saying anyone that received tax dollars doesn't hold a job, right? That they are the same as those receiving handouts. Right? Because that's what Shrx was arguing... I"m saying that if you're a boeing researcher you do infact have a job - just because you are paid with tax dollars doesn't mean you're on welfare or receiving handouts nor should you be considered at the same status. Don't think CEO, think the dumb bitch answering the phone...or they guy delivering packages. There are many more delivery boys than CEOs...
He stated that those with legitimate jobs are the same as those receiving welfare - or at least they should be treated the same. You agree with this?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'm less interested in earning debate points by following a logical faultline and more interested in practical solutions.
Frankly i think the idea of requiring elected and appointed public servants to be drug-tested - publicly - is a brilliant one. It recouples policymakers to policy. cn
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
I would agree with this.
Corso312
Well-Known Member
If I agreed with it, I would have typed it..which I did not....I can only speak for myself, But I see his point and yours..both are extreme, just on opposite ends...My problem with piss tests are they target marijuana ...coke and other harder drugs are out of your system much quicker...that is why cops,firemen and other people who get pissed tested do coke on friday and clean on monday for a random and no worry about losing job....If you are going to test food stampers then why not test Farmers and Ceo's who get tax dollars and handouts?
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Because the farmers and CEOs contribute... They positively impact the economy.