Drug tests for those on public assistance

Drug tests for those on public assistance

A few years ago, before we went to word-recognition technology to transcribe Sound Off! calls, we were in the process of hiring an NMSU student to type in the calls.

But before she could take the job, she had to pass a drug test. Which seemed curious to me. Just editing Sound Off! is enough to make me want to take a stiff drink some days. Imagine having to listen to that invective, process it and put it in writing.

Beyond that, it seemed like an unnecessary precaution for a part-time job. Let's say she came to work high one day. What's the worst that could happen, a few typos?

There are some occupations for which strict drug testing should be mandatory. If I'm traveling by air or going under the knife, I want to be absolutely certain that the pilot or surgeon is sober and clear-headed. But, if the dishwasher at my favorite restaurant wants to take a different kind of smoke break after work, I'm can't see how that impacts me or his employer.

My misgivings aside, most employers have instituted mandatory drug-testing policies for new employees. That being the case, shouldn't we also have drug testing for those on government assistance? After all, the goal of those programs is to transfer people from welfare to work. And, for better or worse, you can't get hired these days if you can't pass a drug test.

Rep. Steve Pearce has introduced two bills on the subject — HR 3615 and HR 3722. The first would require drug testing for recipients of unemployment compensation, the second would require it for those in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — previously known as welfare.

Before going any further, I should stress that neither bill is going to pass. Both were introduced in December, but have yet to get a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee. They could conceivably get through the House, but not the Senate. And certainly not signed by the president.
The questions isn't whether they will pass, it's whether they should.

Both bills would require states, which administer the programs, to drug test applicants. Those seeking unemployment insurance who test positive would be required to retest after a 30-day waiting period (the time required to cleanse the system). Those who test positive three times or more would be denied unemployment compensation for five years.

The second bill prohibits a state from providing TANF assistance to individuals who test positive for an illegal drug, and includes an administrative penalty for failure to implement drug use testing.

Opponents of the bills maintain they are a violation of privacy, and treat the poor as if they are criminals. Perhaps. But, aren't all job seekers treated the same way? Why should those on public assistance be given protections that those seeking work are not?

A larger issue to me is who pays for the drug test. Those seeking employment do not pay for their own drug tests — the employer does. For those who are unemployed and struggling to feed their families, that added expense could be significant.

A lot of people have lost their jobs in the last few years through no fault of their own, especially in my chosen profession. As one of the fortunate who hasn't, I'm willing to lend a hand. But the money people receive through public assistance should not be used to buy drugs.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of drug testing. If it were up to me, pot would be legal, enforcement of harder drugs would focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration and only jobs in which personal or public safety could be endangered would require drug testing. But the world didn't ask my opinion.

Whether I like it or not, you need to pass a drug test these days to get a job. Doesn't it make sense to ensure that those on public assistance can meet that requirement?

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.