iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Unemployment Drug Test Provision In Payroll Tax Bill Would Affect Few Workers, Say Democrats


First Posted: 02/16/2012 5:59 pm Updated: 02/17/2012 1:58 pm

WASHINGTON -- Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply over how many workers will wind up peeing in cups as a result of a payroll tax cut compromise bill that would allow states to drug test the jobless.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House of Representatives committee that oversees unemployment insurance, said very few workers would be affected by the GOP scheme.

"I think it's a small percentage," Levin said.

The drug testing is part of a broader bill that preserves federal unemployment insurance, a 2 percentage point payroll tax cut, and Medicare reimbursement rates for the rest of 2012. Democrats have boasted that they beat back a Republican proposal to deny benefits to workers who haven't earned or aren't pursuing the equivalent of a high school education.

But Democrats ceded ground on reducing the duration of benefits; by the end of the year, the longest anyone can claim benefits will have dropped from 99 to 73 weeks. Democrats also gave ground on drug testing, which they completely opposed last week.

Republicans initially wanted to allow states to require everybody who applies for unemployment insurance to prove they're not on drugs. The new version will allow states to drug test only unemployment applicants who lost their jobs because of drug use and those applying for jobs in industries where drug testing is common.

Republicans have suggested the watered-down version of their proposal would affect most workers, citing a 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management that found 84 percent of employers required new hires to submit to drug tests.

"That's total nonsense," Levin said. "No way 80 percent."

According to the latest data from SHRM, 57 percent of employers required all new hires to pass a drug test in 2011. An additional 10 percent tested only certain candidates, and an additional 4 percent tested when required by state law.

Of 80 recruiters at Fortune 500-sized companies surveyed last year, 53 said they require new hires to pass drug tests, according to Corporate Executive Board, a business research firm. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration said it does not track the rate of employer drug testing.

The bill as drafted directs the Labor Department to determine whom states can test. According to a Democratic aide, the legislation says the person must be "an individual for whom suitable work as defined under the state law is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor."

Levin said the Labor Department's rulemaking will be favorable. "I have confidence in the present Department of Labor. I think they'll be rigorous and make sure it follows the spirit, and the spirit is where it's really necessary for the pursuit of one's occupation."

The Labor Department could not immediately provide data on how many occupations could be affected.

In the past year, a dozen state legislatures have proposed requiring unemployment claimants to pass a drug test, but federal law currently bars them from denying benefits for reasons unrelated to the cause of a worker's job loss, except for fraud or if a person is earning too much from other work.

UPDATE: This story has been updated to include the most recent drug testing survey data from the Society for Human Resource Management.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply over how many workers will wind up peeing in cups as a result of a payroll tax cut compromise bill that would allow states to drug test the job...
WASHINGTON -- Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply over how many workers will wind up peeing in cups as a result of a payroll tax cut compromise bill that would allow states to drug test the job...
WASHINGTON -- Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply over how many workers will wind up peeing in cups as a result of a payroll tax cut compromise bill that would allow states to drug test the job...
WASHINGTON -- Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply over how many workers will wind up peeing in cups as a result of a payroll tax cut compromise bill that would allow states to drug test the job...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 190
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimmyjack frankentoast
01:00 PM on 03/20/2012
how is welfare drug testing unconstitutional, but this isn't? less than 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for drugs anyway, this is a waste of time and money.
02:59 PM on 03/08/2012
I sincerely believe that anyone and everyone who is a recieptient of any Government funding should be held subject to drug testing. This would also include all lawmakers.all politions all judges. Persons on unemployment pay into a fund as do their employers. but our above the law people who are holding government offices drawing wages via the middle class tax payers don't seem to care.This is discrimination in it's raw form. What a dis service to the American People
11:24 AM on 02/21/2012
Well as long as it only effects a few then I guess they can do whatever they want. (heavy sarcasm intended). Also, if you lose your job because of drugs you aren't eligible for UI benefits anyway, so this makes no sense.
02:52 PM on 02/20/2012
There are many reasons drug testing the unemployed or welfare recipients is pointless at best, but i never hear it mentioned that urine test are very easy to cheat.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:50 AM on 02/18/2012
For anyone to imply that anyone is on drugs before exhibiting probable cause is clearly unConstitutional and unAmerican.

Those seeking employment want and need to find a job or start a new career to support themselves and protect their families. To criminalize the unemployed for being unemployed is a NATIONAL DISGRACE!!
12:39 PM on 02/18/2012
we won't know until we test your ()ss
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:52 PM on 02/18/2012
Want some of the clown's urine? Step right up!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:11 PM on 02/17/2012
I believe that there will be limited to no drug testing of people applying for unemployment compensation for the following reasons:

Here's the wording of the law: ‘‘(l)(1) Nothing in this Act or any other provision of Federal law shall be considered to prevent a State from enacting legislation to provide for—

(A) testing an applicant for unemployment compensation for the unlawful use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving such compensation, if such applicant—
(i) was terminated from employment with the applicant’s most recent employer (as defined under the State law) because of the unlawful use of controlled substances; or (ii) is an individual for whom suitable work (as defined under the State law) is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing (as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor); or

(B) denying such compensation to such applicant on the basis of the result of the testing conducted by the State under legislation described in subparagraph (A)."

What it means: (MORE)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:11 PM on 02/17/2012
1. The state has to pass such a law. If your state doesn't pass such a law, you don't have to worry about the drug testing.
2. States that do pass such a law can only test if the person was laid off from his/her last job due to drug abuse (but you can't probably couldn't collect unemployment compensation if you were laid off for drug abuse) or if the ONLY "suitable work" a person could get requires a drug test. Since most people can find multiple types of occupations as "suitable work", this will be a hard provision to define or enforce.
3. It says testing "an applicant". This would seem to mean that people who are already collecting; that is, people who have been approved and are passed the "applicant" stage would NOT be required to pee in a cup.
4. Any law passed by a state would probably be challenged on fourth amendment grounds, so it would sit in the courts for a while.
5. Finally, there is no money going to the states, as far as I can tell, for administration or such a program.

I would be surprised if, given the situation and the constraints,many states enact such a law... other than punitive states like Virginia, Florida, Georgia and a few others.
06:33 PM on 02/18/2012
Most construction workers such as laborers, concret finishers etc., do work for companies that require them to do random drug testing and most do this.

All major corporations require this to get a job in the first place. Point is this could possibly apply to nearly everyone who becomes unemployed and are now applying.

We should apply this conservative way of thinking to its logical conclusion, .....if we are to be against anyone receiving money from the government to be tested, then so be it!

Time for all congressmen, senators and their staffs to be drug tested. They are getting quite a bit of our tax dollars too so test them we must!
07:04 PM on 02/18/2012
I think you are missing the point. President Obama should veto this and make them take this out! This not a winning issue for the republicans, he should hold his ground.

First of all, remember Scott Walker? You think he wouldn't be able to get this through? What about Indiana? And others!

And if you think there is no risk in this happening because it would be challenged, you are fooling yourself about the risk. You think the current Suprene Court would be on which side? Careful here, we would be looking at a major risk to liberty.

Why risk it? Just veto this piece of crap bill.
04:08 PM on 02/17/2012
I bet 99% of jobs in my state require drug testing. So why would unemployment concern themselves with it? That means you get to pee in a cup twice. Once for them and once for your new job-that you will maybe get.
Humm, what next-go pee pee in a cup before I go in my front door.
How will this create good paying jobs and bring down the unemployment rate?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:12 PM on 02/17/2012
Read my comment above yours.. Very few people will wind up peeing in cups.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:49 PM on 02/17/2012
But I agree that this has nothing to do with creating jobs or bringing down the unemployment rate.
11:07 AM on 02/17/2012
Peeing in a cup is a search. A body search. An invasive search. When made a requirement for unemployment benefits then, as I see it, it means one is a criminal for seeking this benefit. How would House and Senate members feel if as a requirement to hold office they were required to pee in a cup? I want to be sure we're not subsidizing a bunch of druggies on Capitol Hill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:14 PM on 02/17/2012
This will be a state to state battle. The new law "allows" the states to pass laws providing for such testing of APPLICANTS. Very few people will wind up being drug tested... if any. And any such state laws enacted will be challenged on 4th amendment grounds. So far federal courts have tossed out all such laws.
11:07 AM on 02/17/2012
Just a couple of comments on this subject.

1. If you lost your job due to a failed drug test or refusal to take a drug test, you don't qualify for unemployment benefits. At least not in my state.

2. In my opinion the Republican push for drug testing is to help the companies that provide those tests increase their bottom line. More payback to big business by the Republicans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:15 PM on 02/17/2012
You are right on number 1. You are right on number 2, but the states have to enact such a law and pay for administration of such a law. And there will be court challenges to any such law that is passed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stcrispy
11:04 AM on 02/17/2012
Why do we allow corporations to drug test as a condition of employment? We make the system we live in - it's a disgrace that we allow this kind of intrusion into people's lives. They can look at our credit records, our insurance history - clearly we are OWNED by any paper entity that might be willing to pay for our skills. It's about time to turn this trend around.
photo
dragonfly1955
"The mountains are calling and I must go."
02:48 PM on 02/17/2012
This is relatively new, it really gained speed during W's reign. I agree, and I've been saying this for years: Why do we, as a people, put up with this?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:16 PM on 02/17/2012
It won't happen until we get the Repubs and their influence out of Congress. Some states (all Blue states, if I'm not mistaken) have passed laws prohibiting companies from looking at credit histories.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JOHNMEDLIN
sharp left ahead
10:30 AM on 02/17/2012
I do not believe the courts will uphold this ruling. Our constitution forbids unlawful search and seizures. It is a violation of one's right to a warrent. They may be on good grounds with poeple termonated for drug use, but otherwise I do not believe it will pass the courts test.
11:09 AM on 02/17/2012
To search one's urine for evidence should require a reasonable suspicion that one is engaged in unlawful activity. Coupling that search with unemployment benefits is branding one as a criminal for seeking those benefits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:17 PM on 02/17/2012
I agree. This is a state by state thing. Each individual state would have to pass such a law, and each law would be challenged in the courts.
photo
Osusuki
All your base are belong to us...
10:25 AM on 02/17/2012
And just who is supposed to pay for all this testing. It doesn't come cheap, you know. Make people who are already on UI shell out another $50 for an unnecessary invasion of their privacy, especially when there is no data to indicate a problem exists? We need more JOBS and less GOPBS.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:18 PM on 02/17/2012
This struggle has moved to the states. It is up to each state to pass such a law if it wishes. Most sensible states will not bother.
photo
Osusuki
All your base are belong to us...
05:07 AM on 02/18/2012
To quote Keith Olberman, "Good luck finding one." The number of states rotted out by Republican governors and legislatures is approaching a majority. They have already passed laws which would have been deemed nonsense 40 years ago. Traditionally, our only defense against the small minds of state government has been a strong federal government. Now that the Feds are caving left and right on issue after issue, the citizens have NO protection.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djaikins
10:04 AM on 02/17/2012
What?? A republican claim that is "total nonsense"?? It belongs in the same pile as the President's birth certificate, his muslim background, death panels and job creators.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:20 PM on 02/17/2012
I firmly believe that few people will be drug tested under this law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djaikins
07:16 PM on 02/17/2012
That's beside the point.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDog79
09:57 AM on 02/17/2012
prescription drug abuse/misuse is on the rise. Drug companies encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs. Until we test for prescription drug abuse and alcohol, we should not test. I have a hard time, peeing into a cup for benefits for which I've already paid. that's is why it's called unemployment insurance.
11:11 AM on 02/17/2012
It's a search w/o a reasonable idea one is doing something illegal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
04:22 PM on 02/17/2012
The bill says "unlawful use of controlled substances". Alcohol is not a problem as it is legal. People getting drugs from their docs are using them lawfully.

This is a state by state law. Each individual state would have to pass a drug testing law and then defend it in the courts. Few will bother.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]